Also known as: bilateral approaches · bilateral · two-sided approach
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule requiring that a conspiracy exist only when at least two persons each possess genuine criminal intent to commit the same crime. The approach focuses on whether the parties reached a true meeting of guilty minds rather than on the objective manifestation of intent by one party alone. If one participant merely pretends to agree or lacks capacity to form criminal intent, no conspiracy arises.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Brendan Burns approached an individual he believed to be a willing accomplice and proposed robbing a bank vault. The individual was an undercover officer who outwardly expressed assent while secretly planning to arrest Burns. Because the officer lacked genuine criminal intent, no true agreement formed between two guilty minds. Burns therefore cannot be convicted of conspiracy under the bilateral approach.
Benito Benitez discussed plans to falsify corporate records with his wife, who suffered from a diagnosed mental condition that prevented her from forming criminal intent. The two appeared to reach an understanding about the scheme. Because the wife could not supply the required guilty mind, the bilateral approach precludes a conspiracy conviction for either spouse.
Bradley Banks recruited a longtime associate to help launder proceeds from an illegal gambling operation. The associate had already agreed to cooperate with investigators and only pretended to accept the proposal. Under the bilateral approach the absence of a second genuine criminal intent defeats any conspiracy charge against Banks.
Bruce Baldwin, acting as the sole agent for Boreal Energy, discussed falsifying environmental reports with the company's in-house counsel. Because the law treats the agent's conduct as the corporation's own act, only one legal actor possessed intent. The bilateral approach therefore bars a conspiracy prosecution against either Baldwin or the corporation.
The bilateral approach requires at least two persons each possessing genuine criminal intent to form a valid conspiracy. The unilateral approach requires only that one party have the requisite intent. Under the bilateral rule a feigned agreement by an undercover officer or an incapacitated person prevents any conspiracy from arising.
Supporting sources
No. At common law a husband and wife were treated as a single legal person. Their agreement alone therefore could not satisfy the requirement of two distinct guilty minds needed for conspiracy.
…of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions. Reversed. Concurring opinions Concurring — Mr.…
…because marriage "is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects." Griswold v. Connecticut , 381 U. S., at 486. We protect the decision whether to have a child because parenthood alters so dramatically an…
…or suffering. "Second, in all persistent vegetative state patients studied to date, postmortem examination reveals overwhelming bilateral
…the left hand. The autopsy listed the cause of death as multiple bullet wounds of head and chest with brain injury and massive bilateral
Supporting sources
Under the bilateral approach the answer is no. The informant lacks genuine criminal intent, so the agreement never involves two guilty minds. The defendant therefore cannot be convicted of conspiracy even though the defendant subjectively believed a criminal pact existed.
Supporting sources
Yes. The common law consistency rule requires that at least two defendants be convicted because the offense itself demands two guilty parties. If one alleged conspirator is acquitted, the bilateral requirement means the remaining defendant cannot stand convicted of conspiracy.
Supporting sources
No. The law views the agent's acts as those of the corporation itself. Only one legal actor therefore possesses intent, and the bilateral plurality requirement is not met.
Supporting sources