Also known as: co-conspirators · coconspirator · coconspirators
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A participant in a conspiracy who joins an agreement to pursue an unlawful objective with the requisite intent.
Cassandra Cooper and Cecilia Cabrera agreed to submit false invoices to a client. While carrying out the plan, Cecilia told a vendor to alter delivery records to hide the overbilling. At trial the vendor's account of that conversation was offered against Cassandra.
Charles Cunningham met repeatedly with two aides to discuss obstructing an investigation. A grand jury indicted the aides for conspiracy and listed Charles as an unindicted co-conspirator in the charging document.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Corinne Cho and Charlotte Chung were regional managers who stopped offering discounts on the same day. Their complaint alleged they formed a conspiracy but supplied no facts showing direct communication or an express agreement.
Connor Clark and a partner stored contraband in a shared warehouse. Police searched the site without a valid warrant. At trial Connor sought to suppress the evidence even though the warrant named only his partner.
Cypress Technologies employees agreed to rig bids. One employee later notified authorities and ceased participation. Prosecutors still charged the employee with conspiracy because the agreement and first overt act had already occurred.
Cedar Creek Farms managers agreed to falsify reports. One manager completed the false filings while another was arrested mid-attempt. The completed substantive offense absorbed the earlier conspiracy charge under merger principles.
The court may consider the co-conspirator's statement itself along with other evidence when deciding by a preponderance whether a conspiracy existed and whether the declarant and the party participated in it.
Supporting sources
No. The prosecution need not demonstrate the unavailability of the nontestifying co-conspirator as a prerequisite to admission of out-of-court statements made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Supporting sources
No. Once the agreement and an overt act in furtherance occur, the conspiracy offense is complete. Later withdrawal does not undo the completed conspiracy although it may limit liability for subsequent substantive crimes.
Supporting sources
No. Under the traditional common-law definition the agreement itself with shared intent completes the offense. An overt act is not required.
Supporting sources
No. Common-law conspiracy is bilateral. Each participant must genuinely intend to pursue the unlawful objective. If one party only pretends to agree there is no conspiracy.
Supporting sources
…Georgia wishes to supply a substantial incentive to those engaged in robbery to leave their guns at home and to persuade their co-conspirators to do the same in the hope that fewer victims of robberies will be killed. [^maj-11]: Petitioner states several times without citation that the only cases considered by the Georgia Supreme…