When a group has been charged with drug conspiracy, and several key members of the group claim they withdrew from the conspiracy at a point in time that would call into question the statute of limitations, is it the role of the government to prove that the drug conspiracy continued in a way that nullifies the statute of limitations? [1]
Facts of the caseEdit
There were six men, convicted through trial of several charges, including violations of the RICO act and drug conspiracy.[1] The specific statutes are 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), where the prior regards attempt and conspiracy, and the latter regards prohibited activities.[2][3][4] The statute used in defense of Smith was 18 U.S.C. § 3282.[5] The case had been heard by the District of Columbia Circuit Court, which held that Smith should be convicted so long as the government had proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of conspiracy and Smith's involvement.[2] The court held that the jury should rule in favor of Smith if he proves that he withdrew from the conspiracy at a time appropriate to the statute of limitations, as the burden of proof was on Smith if the government proved his involvement in the conspiracy.[2]
DecisionEdit
In a unanimous decision, the court, with the majority opinion written by Antonin Scalia sided against Smith.[1] The court created a new precedent that presumes involvement in a conspiracy if the statute of limitations defense is used, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant.[2] The court determined that it is the burden of the defendant to prove that they withdrew from a conspiracy, and that they did so past the statute of limitations.[2] The Due Process Clause of The Constitution of the United States of America is not violated by putting the burden of proof on the defendant.[2] Though argued by the defendant, the court concluded that Mullaney v. Wilbur does not apply in this case.[6] Because Smith took part in a conspiracy, the defense of withdrawal is to be proven by the defendant, as it is assumed that he was a part of the conspiracy throughout.[6] The court also decided that innocence is not determined solely by withdrawing from a conspiracy, as withdrawal has to coincide with the statute of limitations.[2] To further understand the burden of proof on the government in accordance with the ruling, see Dixon v. United States.[7]
ReferencesEdit
^ abcd"Oyez, Smith v. United States". www.oyez.org. Retrieved October 4, 2018.
Text of Smith v. United States, 568U.S. 106 (2013) is available from:JustiaOyez (oral argument audio)
October 18, 2023
smith, united, states, 2013, smith, united, states, 2013, case, decided, supreme, court, united, states, america, case, argued, november, 2012, decided, january, 2013, smith, united, statessupreme, court, united, statesargued, november, 2012decided, january, 2. Smith v United States 568 U S 106 2013 was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States of America 1 The case was argued on November 6 2012 and decided on January 9 2013 2 Smith v United StatesSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued November 6 2012Decided January 9 2013Full case nameSmith v United StatesDocket no 11 8976Citations568 U S 106 more 133 S Ct 714 184 L Ed 2d 570ArgumentOral argumentCase historyPriorMotion to sever for trial granted United States v Gray 173 F Supp 2d 1 D D C 2001 Order requiring defendants to wear stun belts during trial United States v Gray 254 F Supp 2d 1 D D C 2002 Defendants convicted motion for new trial denied United States v Gray 292 F Supp 2d 71 D D C 2003 Affirmed sub nom United States v Moore 651 F 3d 30 D C Cir 2011 Cert granted sub nom Smith v United States 567 U S 916 2012 Holding9 0 in favor of United States The burden of proof remains on the defendant to prove withdrawal from a conspiracy Court membershipChief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia Anthony KennedyClarence Thomas Ruth Bader GinsburgStephen Breyer Samuel AlitoSonia Sotomayor Elena KaganCase opinionMajorityWritten by Justice Scalia Roberts CourtContents 1 Question of the Case 2 Facts of the case 3 Decision 4 References 5 External linksQuestion of the Case EditWhen a group has been charged with drug conspiracy and several key members of the group claim they withdrew from the conspiracy at a point in time that would call into question the statute of limitations is it the role of the government to prove that the drug conspiracy continued in a way that nullifies the statute of limitations 1 Facts of the case EditThere were six men convicted through trial of several charges including violations of the RICO act and drug conspiracy 1 The specific statutes are 21 U S C 846 and 18 U S C 1962 d where the prior regards attempt and conspiracy and the latter regards prohibited activities 2 3 4 The statute used in defense of Smith was 18 U S C 3282 5 The case had been heard by the District of Columbia Circuit Court which held that Smith should be convicted so long as the government had proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of conspiracy and Smith s involvement 2 The court held that the jury should rule in favor of Smith if he proves that he withdrew from the conspiracy at a time appropriate to the statute of limitations as the burden of proof was on Smith if the government proved his involvement in the conspiracy 2 Decision EditIn a unanimous decision the court with the majority opinion written by Antonin Scalia sided against Smith 1 The court created a new precedent that presumes involvement in a conspiracy if the statute of limitations defense is used shifting the burden of proof to the defendant 2 The court determined that it is the burden of the defendant to prove that they withdrew from a conspiracy and that they did so past the statute of limitations 2 The Due Process Clause of The Constitution of the United States of America is not violated by putting the burden of proof on the defendant 2 Though argued by the defendant the court concluded that Mullaney v Wilbur does not apply in this case 6 Because Smith took part in a conspiracy the defense of withdrawal is to be proven by the defendant as it is assumed that he was a part of the conspiracy throughout 6 The court also decided that innocence is not determined solely by withdrawing from a conspiracy as withdrawal has to coincide with the statute of limitations 2 To further understand the burden of proof on the government in accordance with the ruling see Dixon v United States 7 References Edit a b c d Oyez Smith v United States www oyez org Retrieved October 4 2018 a b c d e f g h Smith v United States 568 U S 106 2013 21 U S C 846 18 U S C 1962 d 18 U S C 3282 a b Opinion analysis When a defense is just a defense SCOTUSblog SCOTUSblog January 14 2013 Retrieved November 29 2018 Dixon v United States 548 U S 1 2006 External links EditText of Smith v United States 568 U S 106 2013 is available from Justia Oyez oral argument audio Supreme Court slip opinion archived Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Smith v United States 2013 amp oldid 1175149879, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
