Part 6: Conspiracies | Defenses | Withdrawal (leaving) from the conspiracy. Schorovsky case

The offense level of a defendant convicted of drug trafficking is determined by the quantity of drugs involved in the offense. The quantity includes drugs with which the defendant was directly involved and drugs that can be attributed to the defendant as part of her relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). The commentary to § 1B1.3 notes that a defendant’s relevant conduct does not include the conduct of the members of a conspiracy before the defendant joins the conspiracy, even if the defendant knows of such conduct. Although the Guidelines are silent on the matter, we believe it is logical to infer that the conduct of conspirators after a defendant withdraws from the conspiracy likewise is excluded from the defendant’s relevant conduct for sentencing purposes.

A defendant is presumed to continue involvement in a conspiracy unless she makes a “substantial affirmative showing of withdrawal, abandonment, or defeat of the conspiratorial purpose.” To establish withdrawal a defendant bears the burden of demonstrating affirmative acts inconsistent with the object of the conspiracy that are communicated in a manner reasonably calculated to reach conspirators.

We conclude that Schorovsky met her burden by establishing that she affirmatively acted inconsistent with the object of the conspiracy when she left the repair shop and told Lujan that she wanted nothing else to do with the conspiracy. Because Lujan was a major player in the conspiracy and the common law wife of the conspiracy’s leader, we are persuaded that Schorovsky’s desire to withdraw from the conspiracy was communicated in a manner reasonably calculated to reach the other conspirators.

Full case here: U.S. v. Schorovsky, 202 F.3d 727 (5th Cir. 2000).

Please watch:
Part 1: Introduction to Conspiracy Law. Multi-part series exploring criminal conspiracy cases.

Part 2: Conspiracies | Pinkerton Liability | Co-conspirators responsible for each others crimes.

Part 3: Conspiracies | Elements of the crime and Overt Act definition from U.S. v. Rabinowich

Part 4: Conspiracies | Prejudicial Joinder, extrajudicial confession implicates a co-defendant.

Part 5: Conspiracies | Rebuttal use of co-defendant’s statements in trial. Confrontation Clause.

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?

Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!