Get the DealBook newsletter to make sense of major business and policy headlines — and the power-brokers who shape them.__________
Conspiracy charges are among the most powerful tools for the Justice Department, allowing prosecutors to bring disparate defendants together into a single case. The question is whether prosecutors in Boston may have overreached in trying to link in a single conspiracy 19 of the 33 parents who were charged last month in the national college admissions scandal.
A group of defense lawyers sent a letter to Patti B. Saris, the chief judge of United States District Court in Boston, protesting the government’s tactic in charging their clients with a single criminal conspiracy. The core of their complaint is that the Justice Department used the conspiracy charge in a “judge shopping” effort to get the case in front of Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, who is known as being tough at sentencing.
The United States attorney in Boston, Andrew E. Lelling, responded that the letter was “procedurally inappropriate and disingenuous” and a “Hail Mary by people who know better.”
Proving that the parents were part of one conspiracy may be difficult for the government. To establish a conspiracy, prosecutors must show the defendants were part of a single agreement to engage in criminal conduct. It is not clear, though, that any of the parents even knew about the others. The fact that different colleges were involved may further undermine the government’s claim that there was a single agreement to violate the mail and wire fraud statutes and to engage in money laundering.
One type of conspiracy is known as a “chain” because different individuals are grouped together around a common purpose. In drug conspiracy cases, for example, the government can show that each member of the conspiracy, from the top-level importer to the street dealers, knew they were participating in a joint venture even if they were unaware of the identity of the other participants.
Another kind of conspiracy is described as a “hub and spoke” because one person plays a central role in dealing with different individuals engaged in the same type of misconduct. In Kotteakos v. United States, from 1946, the Supreme Court found that there were multiple conspiracies rather than a unified agreement to obtain loans guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration. The court explained that there was no connection between the borrowers because “without the rim of the wheel to enclose the spokes” there was not a single agreement to violate the law. Without a link to tie all the defendants into one agreement, the single conspiracy charge was improper.
One esteemed jurist, Judge Learned Hand of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, pointed out how prosecutors sometimes overreached in bringing a conspiracy charge against multiple defendants. In 1940 in United States v. Falcone, he wrote that “so many prosecutors seek to sweep within the dragnet of conspiracy all those who have been associated in any degree whatever with the main offenders.”
The allegation in the college admissions case looks much more like a hub-and-spoke conspiracy. At the center, prosecutors say, was William Singer, whom The New York Times described as the Pied Piper of college admissions. But it is difficult to see what the “rim” is that can link these disparate parents into one agreement.
A decision by the federal appeals court in Manhattan in 2001 bears some similarity to what is being charged in the college admissions case. In United States v. McDermott, the defendants were the head of an investment bank; an adult film star to whom he gave inside information about future deals; and another man, who also traded on the information after the woman provided him with it. The appeals court overturned the conspiracy conviction of the investment banker and the other man, using evocative language: “We decline to hold as a matter of law that a cheating heart must foresee a cheating heart.” In other words, there was no evidence to link the two men beyond that fact that they both violated the proscription against insider trading.
The 19 parents are accused of engaging in a similar pattern of conduct, whether it involved paying to have the answers on their children’s standardized tests changed or bribing coaches to get children admitted as athletes when they were not. But the success of each effort did not depend on the presence of others, so it may be that there were multiple conspiracies to violate the law rather than a single, overarching agreement with Mr. Singer.
The means to challenge the conspiracy charge is to seek a severance of the cases, arguing that prosecutors violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(b). Under that rule, two or more defendants can be charged in a single indictment if they are alleged to have “participated in the same act or transaction” or “series of acts or transactions.” But if this, in fact, was a true hub-and-spoke conspiracy without a rim, then joining all of the parents in a single case may be improper and require the court to divide it into separate proceedings.
The challenge for the government if the defendants succeed in severing their cases is that Mr. Singer, who is cooperating in the case, may have to testify multiple times. The more a witness testifies, the greater the possibility that he will say something inconsistent with previous statements. That can be fodder for the defense to undermine his credibility during cross-examination.
The Justice Department no doubt would prefer not to have to undertake multiple trials involving allegations of the same basic conduct. Charging a single conspiracy charge is a way to avoid that possibility. But the defendants can be expected to cite the Kotteakos decision to argue that the government improperly charged a hub-and-spoke conspiracy without the rim to link them together.B:
闲看风落彩友心水汇总【阴】【女】【荀】【甚】【至】【还】【有】【些】【幸】【灾】【乐】【祸】【地】【想】，【有】【了】【竟】【陵】【公】【主】【的】【人】【在】，【只】【怕】【澧】【兰】【翻】【不】【出】【什】【么】【大】【浪】【来】，【何】【先】【生】【要】【失】【望】【了】。 【竟】【陵】【公】【主】【又】【看】【了】【一】【眼】【澧】【兰】，【笑】【道】：“【澧】【兰】，【日】【后】【你】【主】【子】【在】【大】【溱】【宫】【中】【过】【活】，【也】【要】【看】【你】【的】，【大】【溱】【比】【不】【得】【东】【越】，【受】【了】【委】【屈】【可】【以】【找】【太】【后】【做】【主】，【很】【多】【事】【都】【要】【自】【己】【往】【肚】【子】【里】【咽】，【你】【可】【明】【白】？” 【澧】【兰】【躬】【身】【答】【道】：“【多】【谢】
【英】【雄】【大】【陆】【少】【数】【平】【民】【勇】【士】【本】【身】【天】【赋】【极】【好】，【加】【上】【运】【气】【足】【够】【好】，【成】【长】【道】【路】【走】【得】【比】【较】【顺】【利】，【但】【是】【他】【们】【突】【破】【三】【转】【神】【级】，【大】【概】【需】【要】【耗】【费】【三】【五】【十】【年】【时】【间】。 【这】【些】【职】【业】【勇】【士】【因】【为】【出】【身】【限】【制】，【使】【得】【他】【们】【成】【长】【机】【会】，【比】【一】【些】【特】【权】【贵】【族】【少】【了】【很】【多】。 【但】【一】【天】【这】【些】【人】【成】【长】【为】【神】【级】【强】【者】，【在】【英】【雄】【大】【陆】【就】【可】【以】【称】【之】【为】【天】【才】【人】【物】。 【不】【过】【对】【于】【拥】【有】【深】
【陈】【牧】【没】【有】【去】【追】。 【能】【够】【打】【退】【苗】【飞】【已】【经】【用】【尽】【了】【他】【所】【有】【的】【力】【量】。 【如】【今】【哪】【还】【有】【余】【力】【追】【上】【去】，【至】【于】【其】【他】【人】……【陈】【牧】【也】【没】【有】【其】【他】【人】，【认】【识】【的】【不】【过】【是】【一】【些】【下】【属】，【当】【然】【那】【些】【下】【属】【若】【是】【敢】【追】【上】【去】，【别】【看】【苗】【飞】【被】【陈】【牧】【打】【退】【打】【败】，【但】【是】【人】【家】【杀】【后】【天】【武】【者】，【那】【简】【直】【就】【是】【举】【手】【之】【劳】。 “【陈】【牧】，【没】【有】【事】【吧】！”【随】【着】【苗】【飞】【离】【开】，【防】【护】【气】【罡】【也】【是】
10【日】【晚】，SuperM【成】【员】【黄】【旭】【熙】、【李】【永】【钦】、【李】【泰】【容】、【李】【马】【克】【因】“SuperM WE ARE THE FUTURE LIVE【美】【国】【巡】【演】”【日】【程】【经】【由】【仁】【川】【国】【际】【机】【场】【出】【发】【前】【往】【美】【国】【达】【拉】【斯】，【巡】【演】【加】【油】！闲看风落彩友心水汇总“【还】【有】【你】【们】【一】【个】【个】【的】，【可】【要】【好】【好】【伺】【候】【教】【主】，【既】【然】【教】【主】【喜】【食】【毒】【芹】，【这】【玩】【意】【儿】【路】【边】【多】【的】【是】，【一】【定】【让】【教】【主】【一】【天】【三】【顿】【一】【顿】【不】【落】【的】【吃】【上】”。 “【我】【怎】【么】【养】【了】【你】【这】【么】【个】【缺】【心】【眼】【儿】【的】【玩】【意】【儿】，【这】【是】【要】【把】【老】【子】【当】【成】【猪】【喂】【的】【节】【奏】【啊】”，【司】【冥】【暗】【骂】【一】【声】，【当】【初】【他】【只】【是】【吃】【了】【一】【顿】。【就】【上】【吐】【下】【泻】【的】【好】【几】【天】，【这】【要】【是】【天】【天】【吃】，【非】【得】【要】【了】【他】【这】【条】【老】【命】【不】
【各】【位】【读】【到】【这】【里】【的】【读】【者】【朋】【友】【们】，【大】【家】【好】。【我】【是】【快】【哉】。 【本】【书】【写】【到】【这】【里】，【就】【已】【经】【完】【结】【了】。 【我】【相】【信】【确】【实】【会】【有】【觉】【得】【不】【够】【长】【的】【读】【者】【朋】【友】（【哪】【怕】【只】【有】【一】【个】），【我】【自】【己】【其】【实】【也】【不】【是】【很】【满】【意】。 【但】【是】【故】【事】【写】【到】【这】【里】，【我】【可】【以】【说】，【已】【经】【写】【崩】【了】。 【因】【为】【第】【一】【次】【写】【这】【么】【长】【的】【文】【字】，【笔】【力】【有】【限】、【能】【力】【有】【限】、【精】【力】【有】【限】，【情】【节】、【人】【物】、【节】
“【你】！”【刘】【子】【龙】【心】【中】【无】【比】【愤】【怒】。 【这】【要】【不】【是】【为】【了】【顾】【及】【形】【象】，【他】【早】【就】【上】【去】【干】【向】【南】【了】。 【向】【南】【琢】【磨】【了】【一】【下】，【吧】【唧】【嘴】【道】：“【来】【啊】！【来】【打】【我】！” “【这】【个】【贱】【样】【子】，【跟】【赵】【泰】【有】【的】【一】【拼】，【哎】【呀】【我】【擦】【你】【才】【是】【大】【人】【物】【哦】。” “【从】【此】【以】【后】，【我】【大】【舅】【哥】【正】【式】【改】【名】【为】【向】【泰】！” “【无】【论】【你】【身】【在】【何】【方】，【无】【论】【在】【什】【么】【时】【候】，【我】【大】【舅】【哥】【随】【时】