Details about conspiracy, esp. overt act

[Micky]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overt_act

"In criminal law, an overt act (from the French adjective ouvert,
open), an open act, one that can be clearly proved by evidence, and
from which criminal intent can be inferred, as opposed to a mere
intention in the mind to commit a crime."

I don't expect a law school level definition from Wikip, so I have a
couple questions.

1) Would T's telling someone else S about a bad act by B, when T knows
that S will then beat B up, or kill him, be the required overt act
needed for a conspiracy?

2) Wikip says, "that can be clearly proved". Does that include
testimony by someone else? Admissions by T? IIRC examples of
overt acts usually involve tangible things that can be proved by
showing their presence, but what about informing, which is only
verbal?

Conspiracy law in general has me wondering.

3) IIUC in some or all states, conspiracy to commit a misdemeanour is
a felony. Somehow that seems like improper bootstrapping. Are there
examples where such upselling would strike me as just?

4) When two people are accessories to a crime, that actually gets off
the ground, don't the facts almost always meet the definition of a
conspiracy. For example, if both guys show up at the planned crime
location at crime time, isn't showing up an overt act?

5) If during the planning of the crime, one guy sits there saying
nothing and later does nothing, I doubt he's a conspirator.

If he says, 'robbing that guy is a good idea', but does no more than
that...???? Is encouraging the others an overt act? (my impression,
no.)

If he says, "The guy gets home from work every day at 5:30" or "He
lives at 222 Main St" or "He drives a blue chevy 4-door" are those
overt acts?

[Barry Gold]

Mickey wrote a number of questions about "Overt Act" in Conspiracy Law.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overt_act
>
> "In criminal law, an overt act (from the French adjective ouvert,
> open), an open act, one that can be clearly proved by evidence, and
> from which criminal intent can be inferred, as opposed to a mere
> intention in the mind to commit a crime."

The legal definition may be confusing. AFAIK, an "overt act" is
something you _do_ as opposed to something you _think_. It's something
that another person can see, it's outside of yourself, out in the open,
hence "overt".

You're also missing the context for this whole "overt act" thing. The
crime of "conspiracy" has two elements:

1. An agreement by two or more people to commit a crime
2. An overt act in furtherance of that agreement.

The question you are asking about only concerns part 2.

> 1) Would T's telling someone else S about a bad act by B, when T knows
> that S will then beat B up, or kill him, be the required overt act
> needed for a conspiracy?

I doubt it. Simply telling somebody facts that are out in the open isn't
conspiracy. Even if B asked you to keep it a secret, spilling the beans
isn't a crime.

>
> 2) Wikip says, "that can be clearly proved". Does that include
> testimony by someone else? Admissions by T? IIRC examples of
> overt acts usually involve tangible things that can be proved by
> showing their presence, but what about informing, which is only
> verbal?

The agreement itself is not an "overt act in furtherance", because until
the agreement is made there is nothing to "further". IIUC, mere words
spoken _between_ the co-conspirators are not an overt act. But words
_can_ be an overt act if spoken to somebody _outside_ the conspiracy.

Let's say that you and I agree to hack into Evil Corp. and steal their
secret plans. If you go to a janitor working for Evil Corp. and promise
him money to get you some information that might be on scraps of paper
that people leave in wastebaskets, _That_ could be an "overt act".
Similarly with most forms of Social Engineering -- asking seemingly
innocent questions in order to get enough info to guess somebody's password.

> 4) When two people are accessories to a crime, that actually gets off
> the ground, don't the facts almost always meet the definition of a
> conspiracy. For example, if both guys show up at the planned crime
> location at crime time, isn't showing up an overt act?

Good question. I'm not sure if simply being there (assuming it's not
otherwise illegal for you to be there) is enough. Climbing a fence --
even putting one foot into a link in the fence -- would be enough.
Buying something you plan to use in the crime is a typical overt act. So
is making something from stuff you already have, even if you only put
two parts together out of several hundred needed for whatever you are
making.

>
> 5) If during the planning of the crime, one guy sits there saying
> nothing and later does nothing, I doubt he's a conspirator.

Agreement can be inferred under certain circumstances, but yes, saying
and doing nothing probably isn't. And in fact the accused could
reasonably argue that leaving or speaking up against the plan would get
him killed or injured, although belief of that would be up to the jury.

> If he says, 'robbing that guy is a good idea', but does no more than
> that...???? Is encouraging the others an overt act? (my impression,
> no.)

Probably not. Under certain circumstances "encouraging others" might be
an agreement, but not an "overt act".

>
> If he says, "The guy gets home from work every day at 5:30" or "He
> lives at 222 Main St" or "He drives a blue chevy 4-door" are those
> overt acts?

I suspect so. Now you've contributed information which "furthers the
purpose" of the conspiracy.

Remember: Conspiracy == agreement PLUS overt act

An overt act by _one_ member of the conspiracy completes the elements of
the crime. Once that happens, *all* the parties to the agreement are
(theoretically) liable for the crime -- unless they have "repented" and
told the others they want nothing to do with it, *before* the overt act
happened.