Murder, rape and bribery are all crimes that everyone understands; what is meant by conspiracy is less obvious. 'Lately, this age-old crime has become one that district attorneys find themselves prosecuting in a variety of important cases. Conspiracy charges have helped convict such diverse defendants as Billie Sol Estes, the accused killers of the three Mississippi civil rights workers, and price-fixing General Electric executives.
Last week conspiracy was again in the news—as Dr. Benjamin Spock, Yale Chaplain William Sloane Coffin and three others stood indicted for conspiring to violate the Selective Service Act. The charges had been brought after weeks of preparation by Attorney General Ramsey Clark's Justice Department. It all apparently pleased one of the codefendants, however. Said Harvard Graduate Student Michael Ferber: "This is the best thing that ever happened to us." But despite the bravado, he may find conspiracy a tough charge to beat.
In Massachusetts Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw's classic, century-old definition, conspiracy is "a combination of two or more persons, by some concerted action, to accomplish some criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish some purpose, not in itself criminal or unlawful, by criminal or unlawful means." The concept of criminal conspiracy is rooted deep in common law; its philosophical underpinning is the premise that two or more men working together are a greater danger to society than an individual plotting alone. Today conspiracy by itself is a crime under federal law and in virtually every state. Ordinarily, it is not even necessary for the ultimate act contemplated in the conspiracy to be accomplished.
No Isolated Charges. There are a number of obvious and not so obvious openings to the prosecutor. To begin with, he need only prove that the defendants knowingly agreed to commit a crime. In some states, he needs to prove nothing else. In others, and under federal law, he must prove that afterward at least one overt act in the direction of the crime was committed by at least one conspirator.
Once the conspiracy has been proved, all of the various participants can be held responsible for anything that any one of them may have done in furtherance of the conspiracy. This is particularly valuable in organized-crime cases. When Lucky Luciano was convicted for compulsory prostitution in the '30s, for instance, he was guilty in part because of conspiracy. In a case like the Spock-Coffin indictment, the Government also does not need to prove an endless list of isolated charges. Instead, says Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, "it would like to paint the picture of a widespread agreement, and that may be a realistic portrayal of the situation."