DrugPolicyCases.com | |||
|
Conspiracy There are plenty of people serving many many years, often decades because they were found guilty of a conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. Here's what the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin from October, 1994 has to say: "Conventional drug cases require an inordinate amount of time, personnel, and above all, money when attempting to secure a conviction for distribution. These cases go far beyond what is necessary to convict a suspect for the often-over-looked crime of conspiracy, which is simply an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime. Drug conspiracy constitutes a separate and distinct offense and does not depend on whether the subjects accomplished the conspiracy's objective -- selling drugs." This section contains the Court's treatment of the conspiracy and CCE (Continuing Criminal Enterprise) offenses.
The Government, emphasizing the words "continuing series," says that the statute, in seeking to punish drug kingpins, focuses upon the drug business, not upon the particular violations that constitute the business. [...] The argument, however, begs the question. Linguistically speaking, the statute punishes those kingpins who are involved in a "continuing series of violations" of the drug laws. And Congress might well have intended a jury to focus upon individual violations in order to assure guilt of the serious crime the statute creates. Emphasizing the first two words in the passage does not eliminate the last.
[...]
...[T]he Government says that a jury-unanimity requirement will make the statute's crime too difficult to prove -- to the point where it is unreasonable to assume Congress intended such a requirement. But we do not understand why a unanimity requirement would produce that level of difficulty. After all, the Government routinely obtains the testimony of underlings -- street-level dealers who could point to specific incidents -- as well as the testimony of agents who make controlled buys or otherwise observe drug transactions. Such witnesses should not have inordinate difficulty pointing to specific transactions. Or, if they do have difficulty, would that difficulty in proving individual specific transactions not tend to cast doubt upon the existence of the requisite "series"?
[...]
...[T]he CCE offense is aimed at what Congress perceived to be a peculiar evil: the drug kingpin.
[...]
The continuing series element [of the CCE offense] reflects Congress' intent to punish those who organize or direct ongoing narcotics-related activity. As the Court said in Garrett: "A common-sense reading of this definition [of 'engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise'] reveals a carefully crafted prohibition aimed at a special problem. This language is designed to reach the 'top brass' in the drug rings, not the lieutenants and foot soldiers." [...] As part of that statutory design, the continuing series element of the offense aims to punish those whose persistence and organization establish a successful, ongoing criminal operation. The continuing series element, as a consequence, is directed at identifying drug enterprises of the requisite size and dangerousness, not at punishing drug offenders for discrete drug violations.
[...]
In the CCE context, the continuing series element advances the goals of the statute in a way that is neither unfair nor irrational: It is a direct and overt prohibition upon drug lords whose very persistence and success makes them a particular evil.
[...]
|
|