definition of 'conspiracy theory' in law

L

LearninHand

New Member
I'm searching for a source (case, journal, etc.) that explicitly defines 'conspiracy theory' as a legal concept for criminal and/or civil law. I see definitions of 'conspiracy' and 'theory of case' but not 'conspiracy theory'. It's obvious what it means, but I'm looking for a source that states it verbatim. Suggestions?
Thx,
LearninHand
 
No. That's the popular usage of the term, not the legal definition. That article says "A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy … without credible evidence." In law, a 'conspiracy theory' is a theory of a case to be judged by a trier of fact. It has not been determined to be 'without credible evidence'. The term is used in loads of cases (check Findlaw, WestLaw, etc.) synonymously with 'theory of conspiracy'. I'm just looking for a source that explicitly states the legal definition.
 
Thx, one of those is closer — Quimbee.

However the others are not:
  • Black's Law Dictionary, FindLaw, USLegal, and Study.com all define 'conspiracy', not 'conspiracy theory'.
  • RationaliWiki defines 'conspiracy theory' the same as Wikipedia — note their "However, since the mid-1960s, it has often been used to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, or irrational speculations theories." That's a definition in popular usage, not in law — where the term is not used dismissively. It's a theory of a case that asserts a conspiracy.
  • The FLETC link is dead.
  • IMDb is about movies.
The Quimbee link helpfully defines "an approach to the crime of conspiracy". If only they had the root legal definition for "conspiracy theory". Further pointers or thoughts?
 
LearninHand said:
The FLETC link is dead.
Click to expand...


Federal Conspiracy Law (Mp3) | FLETC

It isn't dead as far as I can see, especially because it is used to train federal law enforcement personnel.


============================================================

An excerpt of the lecture:


M. John, what is a Conspiracy?

J. A Conspiracy can be described generally as a sort of partnership in crime. Legally, a Conspiracy exists when 2 or more persons join together and form an agreement to violate the law, and then act on that agreement. The crime of Conspiracy was created to address the inherent dangers posed to society when people come together and join forces to commit criminal acts. An important feature of the Conspiracy statute is that it enables the investigator to get beyond the first layer of visible members to find and prosecute the "brains" behind a criminal scheme or organization. Specific federal anti-conspiracy statutes are found throughout federal law. State statutes also contain anti-conspiracy laws. This podcast will focus exclusively on the general Conspiracy statute found at Title 18 USC § 371.

M. What are the elements of a conspiracy?

J. Well, there are basically 5 elements for the crime of Conspiracy. Those elements are: 1. You must have 2 or more persons who 2. Intentionally 3. make an agreement 4. to violate federal law or defraud the United states, and then 5. Commit some overt act in furtherance of the agreement. Based on these elements, we know that the crime of Conspiracy is a specific- intent crime. In other words Michelle, the government must prove that these 2 or more persons intentionally entered into an agreement to commit some criminal offense. This means that in proving that there are two (2) or more person involved, undercover officers and confidential informants would not count because they would not have the requisite criminal intent. Also, the overt act done in furtherance of the agreement must occur AFTER the agreement has been reached.

M. So, anytime 2 or more people are involved in a crime, there's a Conspiracy?

J. Well, only if the government can prove that those involved entered into some agreement to commit the crime and that there was some overt act committed after the agreement was reached to help it succeed. Many times this "agreement" will be proven by circumstantial evidence. For example, if it can be shown that a participant is receiving some direct benefit from the illegal activity, this is a good indication that the person is a part of the Conspiracy. In addition, the overt act that follows the agreement doesn't necessarily have to be an illegal act. It just has to be some act that demonstrates that the agreement is now being acted upon.

M. What is the penalty?

J. The general Conspiracy statute provides a maximum punishment of not more than five (5) years, as well as a fine up to $250,000.00 for a felony offense. For a misdemeanor offense, the maximum punishment cannot exceed the maximum possible punishment for the misdemeanor.

M. You said the crime of Conspiracy requires that there be an actual agreement to violate federal law or defraud the government. Tell me more about this "Agreement"?

J. Yes. The Agreement is the essence of any Conspiracy. One important thing to keep in mind is that the crime of Conspiracy is different and distinct from the substantive or underlying crime. In other words, a person can be prosecuted and convicted for the underlying crime AND for Conspiracy to commit that crime. Just having an agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal offense is not, in itself, a Conspiracy. There MUST be some overt act in furtherance of the agreement committed AFTER the Agreement has been reached.



============================================================

One thing you'll learn about our legal system, there is no one definitive source for anything.

Laws are an amalgam or compendium of various opinions, precedents, recollections, legislative histories, and actual laws or regulations.

There is rarely one definitive answer to anything, rather a series of interpretations that approximate an answer or a guess.
 
LearninHand said:
I'm searching for a source (case, journal, etc.) that explicitly defines 'conspiracy theory' as a legal concept for criminal and/or civil law. I see definitions of 'conspiracy' and 'theory of case' but not 'conspiracy theory'. It's obvious what it means, but I'm looking for a source that states it verbatim. Suggestions?
Thx,
LearninHand
Click to expand...

You are looking for something that does not exist. In the U.S. the law defines what is a "conspiracy." But as the lack of a definition in Black's Legal Dictionary should suggest to you, in U.S. law there is no definition for the term "conspiracy theory." That's because there is no crime or civil claim for having a conspiracy theory. You can have all kinds of theories about conspiracies, but the term "conspiracy theory" has no particular meaning in the law.
 
Tax Counsel said:
You are looking for something that does not exist. In the U.S. the law defines what is a "conspiracy." But as the lack of a definition in Black's Legal Dictionary should suggest to you, in U.S. law there is no definition for the term "conspiracy theory." That's because there is no crime or civil claim for having a conspiracy theory. You can have all kinds of theories about conspiracies, but the term "conspiracy theory" has no particular meaning in the law.
Click to expand...
The term is used in volumes of cases synonymously with 'theory of (a/the) conspiracy'. The term might not be defined in Black's, but it seems to be commonly understood.

Also, re "there is no … claim for having a conspiracy there", I found this case which counters that: Roy Thomas, Appellant, v. United States, Appellee, 95-CF-912, 98-CO-1545 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2000): "In Jacobs v. Scott, 31 F.3d 1319, 1329 (5th Cir.1994), the court, in concluding that a defendant may be liable under a conspiracy theory absent a formal charge of conspiracy, relied directly on the law of aiding and abetting which states that 'one who has been indicted as a principal may, on proper instructions, be convicted on evidence showing only that he aided and abetted the commission of the offense.' Id. (quoting United States v. Robles-Pantoja, 887 F.2d 1250, 1255 (5th Cir.1989))." I only raise this re the issue of 'conspiracy theory' not have a particular meaning.

Thx for your consideration
 
I think we are in troll territory. This poster is on 4 sites asking the same question and every time there's an answer his response is "that's not right" and proceeds to cite cases.
 
LearninHand said:
The term is used in volumes of cases synonymously with 'theory of (a/the) conspiracy'. The term might not be defined in Black's, but it seems to be commonly understood.

Also, re "there is no … claim for having a conspiracy there", I found this case which counters that: Roy Thomas, Appellant, v. United States, Appellee, 95-CF-912, 98-CO-1545 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2000): "In Jacobs v. Scott, 31 F.3d 1319, 1329 (5th Cir.1994), the court, in concluding that a defendant may be liable under a conspiracy theory absent a formal charge of conspiracy, relied directly on the law of aiding and abetting which states that 'one who has been indicted as a principal may, on proper instructions, be convicted on evidence showing only that he aided and abetted the commission of the offense.' Id. (quoting United States v. Robles-Pantoja, 887 F.2d 1250, 1255 (5th Cir.1989))." I only raise this re the issue of 'conspiracy theory' not have a particular meaning.

Thx for your consideration
Click to expand...

As I said, there is no specific definition for the term in the law. That is why you are not finding such a definition. It's like the phrase "red car." There is no particular definition of that term either. Yet you know the meaning from the definitions of the two words that make it up. Same thing here.
 
adjusterjack said:
I think we are in troll territory. This poster is on 4 sites asking the same question and every time there's an answer his response is "that's not right" and proceeds to cite cases.
Click to expand...


In some cases, mate, trolls get trolled around these here parts! <me so funny>
 
@army judge — Thx for the fletc links. While the site does appear to have been taken offline (I'm getting 'Safari can't find server'), I was able to download those from webarchive.

Re the troll business … apologies to all for posting on multiple (3 not 4 as adjusterjack misstates); that was in the interest of getting varied opinions. I'll only post here if at all from now on.

@TaxCounsel — re: "Yet you know the meaning from the definitions of the two words that make it up." Totally agree. But see below:

To explain my motivation on the chance anyone can help further. The wikipedia page on "Conspiracy theory" presents the term as having only a dismissive meaning ("without credible evidence"). That's not it's use in law — as I think we all here would agree it's synonymous with a 'theory of conspiracy' to be presented to a trier of fact as any theory would be presented — without a dismissive connotation.

The editors who control that Wikipedia page don't accept that the legal definition is different than the popular usage. They claim the term is used the same everywhere — politics, law, …. And they won't accept that they differ without what WP terms a 'Secondary source' explicitly providing a non-dismissive definition for the legal use of the term. (They've already ruled out any regular dictionary definitions that are not dismissive — including Wiktionary definition.)

It's actually worse than that — but I'll stop here for now.
 
LearninHand said:
To explain my motivation on the chance anyone can help further. The wikipedia page on "Conspiracy theory" presents the term as having only a dismissive meaning ("without credible evidence"). That's not it's use in law — as I think we all here would agree it's synonymous with a 'theory of conspiracy' to be presented to a trier of fact as any theory would be presented — without a dismissive connotation.
Click to expand...

There is no specific definition of the term conspiracy theory in the law. It is sometimes used as you described above, certainly, but you get that from the context in which it is used, not because there is a legal term of art at work here. There are also times when lawyers, judges, and others in the legal profession will use the term conspiracy theory much like a lot of other people do (and roll their eyes when they do it) to refer to people spouting convoluted wacky theories about how the government, or corporations, or whomever have engaged in some vast conspiracy to do something evil. Again, you get that also from the context in which the term is used. As a result, I think you're unlikely to come up with a compelling authoritative source that says in the law conspiracy theory has some specific meaning.
 
Tax Counsel said:
There is no specific definition of the term conspiracy theory in the law. It is sometimes used as you described above, certainly, but you get that from the context in which it is used, not because there is a legal term of art at work here. There are also times when lawyers, judges, and others in the legal profession will use the term conspiracy theory much like a lot of other people do (and roll their eyes when they do it) to refer to people spouting convoluted wacky theories about how the government, or corporations, or whomever have engaged in some vast conspiracy to do something evil. Again, you get that also from the context in which the term is used. As a result, I think you're unlikely to come up with a compelling authoritative source that says in the law conspiracy theory has some specific meaning.
Click to expand...

Agree with all. I originally had but removed for brevity mention of its use in its popular sense by legal professionals. That shows up in a fair fraction of the cases on Westlaw, etc. I know it's unlikely, but I haven't given up hope. And so seek ideas from brilliant sleuths such as yourselves.

A final note on my motivation: The way WP is hijacking the term has the effect of dismissing a priori theories in the public sphere that might eventually turn out to be true — just because that's what 'mainstream' sources say. (In the news realm, WP only propagates mainstream news.) Not only that, the editors won't even allow mention that the term is used being used in a dismissive way to preemptively squash alternative views, even though there is significant research to support this. There is a public purpose here, and WP is not serving that.
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top