Also known as: meetings of guilty minds · conspiracy · joint enterprise · mens rea agreement
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The mutual criminal intent shared by at least two persons that is required to establish a conspiracy at common law. Each participant must actually intend to carry out the unlawful agreement. Without this shared purpose the agreement does not support conspiracy liability.
Madison Meyers and Miranda Morales, managers of rival stores, secretly agree over coffee to raise prices on popular brands so customers have no cheaper option. Both intend to carry out the coordinated increase. The mutual intent satisfies the requirement for conspiracy liability under the traditional common law rule.
Musa Mensah, a software engineer, exchanges encrypted messages with two freelance hackers to plan a server breach and divide proceeds from stolen code. Mensah intends to promote the theft through the coordinated plan. The shared purpose meets the element even though police intervene before any access occurs.
Melanie Morris, a chemist, agrees with a sales representative to divert trial medications for black-market sale and solicits lab assistants to assist. Morris and the representative both intend to achieve the diversion objective. The mutual intent establishes the conspiracy element.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Mohan Malhotra, a first mate, reaches an agreement with dock worker Eugene to steal electronics containers by disabling security seals. Both intend to accomplish the theft through the agreed method. The shared criminal purpose completes the conspiracy without any further overt act.
Mina Mehta agrees with a foreign buyer to steal proprietary aerospace files and recruits a coworker to download the blueprints. Mehta and the buyer both intend to accomplish the theft through the agreed method. The shared criminal purpose completes the conspiracy.
Mercury Industries employee Frank agrees with dock worker Eugene to steal electronics containers using a specific seal-disabling technique. Eugene later completes the thefts alone using the taught method. The original mutual intent satisfies the conspiracy element even though Frank's own attempt fails.
The meeting of guilty minds requires that each participant actually intends to carry out the unlawful objective, not merely talk about it. An agreement without this shared intent to achieve the criminal purpose does not establish conspiracy.
Supporting sources
Yes. At common law a conspiracy exists only if at least two participants genuinely share the criminal objective. If one merely pretends to agree without truly intending to carry out the plan, the other cannot be convicted of conspiracy.
Supporting sources
No. Under the traditional common law definition the agreement itself constitutes the actus reus. The prosecution need not prove any additional overt act once the parties reach an agreement with the requisite mutual intent.
Supporting sources
No. A defendant may not invoke factual impossibility as a defense. The agreement and mutual intent to commit the unlawful act remain sufficient even when external facts make completion impossible.
Supporting sources
At common law the agreement need not be to commit a crime. A conspiracy exists so long as the parties agree to pursue an unlawful objective or to achieve a lawful objective by unlawful means.
Supporting sources
…March 1, 1974, a grand jury returned an indictment charging seven named individuals with various offenses, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and to obstruct justice. Although not designated in the indictment, the grand jury named the President among others as an unindicted co-conspirator. On April…