The case against former Honolulu businessman Michael J. Miske, Jr., and his remaining co-defendants contains 22 separate charges, including 10 involving conspiracy.

Count 1: Racketeering Conspiracy
Count 3: Conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering
Count 4: Murder for hire conspiracy resulting in death
Count 6: Conspiracy to commit kidnapping using a facility of interstate commerce
Count 7: Murder for hire conspiracy
Count 10: Conspiracy to commit assault in aid of racketeering
Count 11: Conspiracy to commit kidnapping using a facility of interstate commerce
Count 12: Conspiracy to use a chemical weapon
Count 15: Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine
Count 16: Conspiracy to distribute and Possess with intent to distribute controlled substances

I’ve written here before about the special issue raised by the conspiracy charges (“Racketeering Conspiracy” charge makes legal defense more difficult for defendants in Miske Enterprise case).

But over the past few days, while reporting on Mahealani Ventura’s reappearance in federal court, I noticed that the prosecution’s closing argument to the jury in her 2013 trial included a brief explanation of the elements of the conspiracy offense, and thought it worth sharing.

The following is an excerpt concerning conspiracy from that closing argument presented by Lawrence L. Tong.

Now, a conspiracy is a kind of criminal partnership—an agreement of two or more persons to commit one or more crimes. The crime of conspiracy is the agreement to do something unlawful; it does not matter whether the crime agreed upon was committed.

For a conspiracy to have existed, it is not necessary that the conspirators made a formal agreement or that they agreed on every detail of the conspiracy. It is not enough, however, that they simply met, discussed matters of common interest, acted in similar ways, or perhaps helped one another. You must find that there was a plan to commit at least one of the crimes alleged in the indictment as an object of the conspiracy with all of you agreeing as to a particular crime which the conspirators agreed to commit.

One becomes a member of a conspiracy by willfully participating in the unlawful plan with the intent to advance or further some object or purpose of the conspiracy, even though the person does not have full knowledge of all the details of the conspiracy. Furthermore, one who willfully joins an existing conspiracy is as responsible for it as the originators. On the other hand, one who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but happens to act in a way which furthers some object or purpose of the conspiracy, does not thereby become a conspirator. Similarly, a person does not become a conspirator merely by associating with one or more persons who are conspirators, nor merely by knowing that a conspiracy exists.

An overt act does not itself have to be unlawful. A lawful act may be an element of a conspiracy if it was done for the purpose of carrying out the conspiracy. The government is not required to prove that the defendant personally did one of the overt acts

A conspiracy may continue for a long period of time and may include the performance of many transactions. It is not necessary that all members of the conspiracy join it at the same time, and
one may become a member of a conspiracy without full knowledge of all of the details of the unlawful scheme or the names, identities, or locations of all of the other members.

Even though a defendant did not directly conspire with all of the other defendants or other conspirators in the overall scheme, the defendant has, in effect, agreed to participate in the conspiracy if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that:

the defendant directly conspired with one or more conspirators to carry out at least one of the objects of the conspiracy;

(2) the defendant knew or had reason to know that the other conspirators were involved with those with whom the defendant directly conspired; and

(3) the defendant had reason to believe that whatever benefits the defendant might get from the conspiracy were probably dependent upon the success of the entire venture.

It is no defense that a person’s participation in a conspiracy was minor or for a short period of time.

Now, you have heard testimony about various events that took place over a number of years. Some of the people who may have been involved in these events are not on trial. The government is not required to prosecute all members of an alleged conspiracy in one proceeding or trial. Nor is the government required to prove the identity of all of the participants in an alleged conspiracy. An indictment may charge a defendant with a conspiracy involving people whose names are not known, as long as the government can prove that the defendant conspired with one or more persons who are identified.