-Caveat Lector- This article from NYTimes.com has been sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A Conspiracy Nipped Can Still Bring Conviction, Justices Say January 22, 2003 By LINDA GREENHOUSE WASHINGTON, Jan. 21 - The Supreme Court ruled today that members of a criminal conspiracy can be convicted regardless of whether the discovery of the plot by the police has made it impossible for the conspiracy to achieve its goal. "The court has repeatedly said that the essence of a conspiracy is `an agreement to commit an unlawful act,' " Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the court. He added that the criminal agreement "is a distinct evil," punishable whether or not the substantive crime ever takes place. The decision overturned a ruling two years ago by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco. The appeals court overturned the conspiracy convictions of two drug couriers who went to a shopping mall in Idaho expecting to pick up a shipment of drugs, not knowing that the police had already discovered the shipment while it was in transit. Instead of carrying out their part in a conspiracy to distribute narcotics, the two men, Francisco Jimenez Recio and Adrian Lopez-Meza, stepped into what had become a government sting operation. The appeals court reasoned that because the object of the conspiracy had already been frustrated by the time the men arrived, the conspiracy itself had terminated, and the convictions were invalid. In overturning the decision today, the justices were unanimous in their legal reasoning. But Justice John Paul Stevens voted against overturning the Ninth Circuit's judgment, because federal prosecutors had not objected at trial to jury instructions that embodied the appeals court's approach to conspiracy law. Nor had the government challenged the theory in the initial phase of the men's appeal, which cited a number of grounds. "The prosecutor, like the defendant, should be required to turn square corners," Justice Stevens said. The appeals court's ruling was based on one of its own precedents, United States v. Cruz, a 1997 case that adopted a view of conspiracy law that was unique among the federal circuits and had never been endorsed by the Supreme Court. There was little surprise in the Supreme Court's rejection of that approach in its decision today, United States v. Jimenez Recio, No. 01-1184. In its appeal, the government argued in passing that the Ninth Circuit's approach would make it more difficult to prosecute terrorist conspiracies, noting that the government's interest lay both in intercepting the conspiracy and in achieving convictions. But even without the allusion to current concerns, the government's arguments would clearly have found a receptive audience at the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit's approach would potentially threaten "the use of properly run law enforcement sting operations," including the use of undercover agents, Justice Breyer said. A conspiracy "poses a threat to the public over and above the threat of the commission of the relevant substantive crime," he added, because it remains likely that the same person will conspire to commit other offenses even if frustrated in one instance. These were among the other developments at the court today: Insanity Appeal Without comment, the court cleared the way for Texas to execute a prisoner whom the justices granted a last-minute stay in November. The question raised by the prisoner, James B. Colburn, convicted of the 1995 murder of a woman hitchhiking near his home, was whether the federal courts have jurisdiction to consider a claim that an inmate is mentally incompetent to be executed when an earlier federal court petition failed to present that issue. That technical-sounding question is illustrative of a predicament that death-row inmates now face as a result of the interaction between Supreme Court precedents and new Congressional restrictions on access to federal court review by means of petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. The court ruled in 1986 that the execution of inmates who are insane violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The court has also ruled that because mental status changes over time, such a claim is not ripe for federal court review until execution is imminent. But under current habeas corpus law, a legal claim that is not raised in an initial petition will generally not be considered if presented for the first time in a second or successive petition. In this case, lawyers for Mr. Colburn, who has received a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, did not raise his incompetency claim in his first federal habeas corpus petition, in 1999. They did raise it late last year, after his execution date had been set and his mental state had deteriorated to the point that the state itself requested a mental evaluation. Court-appointed experts agreed at that time that he was mentally ill but able to understand the reason he was being executed, thus meeting the minimal competency requirement that the court set in the 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright. The Federal District Court in Houston ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Mr. Colburn's second habeas corpus petition, citing a 1996 federal law under which only a federal appeals court can grant permission to file a second petition. In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, his lawyers argued that the new petition with the competency claim should not be considered a true second petition, because had the claim been made initially, it simply would have been dismissed as not yet ripe. The Fifth Circuit rejected that argument and dismissed the petition. In their appeal, the inmate's lawyers said that "petitioners like Mr. Colburn are trapped in a fatal conundrum formed by the intersection of the ripeness doctrine" and the new rules on successive habeas corpus petitions. They argued that it made no sense to require a competency claim to be included in an initial petition, before an execution date was set, noting that the inmate in the 1986 case had not become manifestly mentally ill until he had been on death row for eight years. The Fifth Circuit's approach, they said, "creates an unacceptable risk that a truly incompetent person will be executed" for purely procedural reasons. The justices' evident lack of interest today in the case, Colburn v. Cockrell, No. 02-7910, was surprising given their stay on Nov. 6, hours before Mr. Colburn's scheduled execution. A stay requires the votes of at least five justices. The purpose of the stay was to give Mr. Colburn time to appeal the Fifth Circuit's ruling. The court's order specified that if the appeal was denied, "this stay shall terminate automatically." Argument Dates The court assigned argument dates in the term's most closely watched cases. A gay-rights challenge to the Texas sodomy law, Lawrence v. Texas, No. 01-102, will be heard on the morning of March 26. Arguments in the University of Michigan affirmative action cases, Grutter v. Bollinger, No. 02-241, and Gratz v. Bollinger, No. 02-516, will be heard the morning of April 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/22/politics/22SCOT.html?ex=1044278039&ei=1&en=9dbc66d271205e86 HOW TO ADVERTISE --------------------------------- For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters or other creative advertising opportunities with The New York Times on the Web, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit our online media kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo For general information about NYTimes.com, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
