Conspiracy/Solicitation to Commit Murder – 18 U.S.C. § 1117 Sentencing Guidelines

Thanks for visiting Spodek Law Group. We’re a second-generation firm managed by Todd Spodek, with over 40 years of combined experience defending clients against federal conspiracy charges—including the most serious: conspiracy to commit murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1117. When federal prosecutors charge murder conspiracy, they’re alleging an agreement to kill someone, even if the murder never happened. That’s the troubling power of conspiracy law: punishing what people planned, not just what they did.

This article explains how federal conspiracy and solicitation to commit murder sentencing works under current guidelines, why the law treats incomplete crimes so seriously, and how defense attorneys challenge the agreement and overt act elements that distinguish protected speech from criminal conspiracy.

What 18 U.S.C. § 1117 Criminalizes: Agreement Plus Action

Federal law punishes conspiracy to violate murder statutes—sections 1111 (murder), 1114 (murder of federal officials), 1116 (murder of foreign officials), and 1119 (foreign murder of U.S. nationals). The statute requires two elements: an agreement between two or more people to commit murder, and at least one overt act by any conspirator toward accomplishing that murder.

The overt act requirement matters constitutionally. Without it, mere conversation—discussing hypothetical scenarios, expressing anger toward someone, even saying “I wish they were dead”—could become criminal. The overt act requirement ensures conspiracy law targets concrete steps toward violence, not just dangerous thoughts. But here’s the problem: the overt act can be minor. Buying a weapon. Conducting surveillance. Making a phone call. These ordinary actions become criminal when prosecutors prove they were done in furtherance of a murder agreement.

The statute authorizes sentences of “any term of years or for life”—the same penalties first-degree murder carries. Congress made the potential punishment equivalent because conspiracy is inherently dangerous: multiple people working together toward a killing represent organized criminal conduct prosecutors consider as threatening as the murder itself.

Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Offense Level 33

Under §2A1.5 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, conspiracy or solicitation to commit first-degree murder receives a base offense level of 33. This assumes the murder was never completed. At Criminal History Category I, that yields 135-168 months—roughly 11 to 14 years. With acceptance of responsibility (−3 levels to offense level 30), sentences drop to 97-121 months (about 8-10 years).

Compare this to completed first-degree murder at offense level 43 (mandatory life). The ten-level difference reflects that attempted or planned murders, while serious, don’t carry the same moral weight as taking a life. But 11-14 years for an incomplete crime still represents substantial punishment—longer than many actual homicides at the state level.

The Murder-for-Hire Enhancement: Add 4 Levels

If the conspiracy involved offering or receiving anything of pecuniary value for undertaking the murder—hiring a hit man, paying someone to kill—the guideline adds 4 levels, bringing the base to offense level 37. At Category I, that means 210-262 months (roughly 17.5 to 22 years). Why the enhancement? Congress and the Sentencing Commission view murder-for-hire as especially dangerous: cold-blooded, calculated, commodified killing that transforms homicide into a commercial transaction.

The enhancement applies whether you’re the person offering payment or receiving it. Hiring a killer carries the same enhancement as being the killer-for-hire. Both participate in treating human life as something that can be purchased and extinguished for money—conduct the guidelines punish severely even when the murder never happens.

Cross References: If the Murder Actually Occurs

Guideline §2A1.5 contains critical cross references. If the conspiracy resulted in the death of a victim, courts don’t apply offense level 33—they apply §2A1.1 (First Degree Murder), which is offense level 43 with mandatory life or death penalties. If the conspiracy resulted in attempted murder or assault with intent to commit murder, courts apply §2A2.1 (Attempted Murder), which is offense level 28-33 depending on circumstances.

These cross references ensure that defendants don’t benefit from the lower conspiracy offense level when their plans actually produced completed murders or serious assaults. The conspiracy charge becomes a floor, not a ceiling—prosecutors can charge both conspiracy and substantive murder, and the higher offense level governs sentencing.

Why Conspiracy Law Is Dangerous: Punishing Agreement

Conspiracy doctrine raises profound constitutional concerns. At its core, it punishes agreement—a form of speech, arguably protected by the First Amendment—rather than completed acts. The Supreme Court has blessed conspiracy prosecutions for over a century, but that doesn’t eliminate the troubling reality: people go to prison for conversations and plans that never materialize into actual violence.

Consider the typical federal murder conspiracy case. Two people angry at a third discuss killing them. One suggests methods. The other agrees it’s a good idea. They research the victim’s schedule. One buys a gun. Then they get cold feet and abandon the plan—or more commonly, an undercover agent or cooperating witness was involved, and the “victim” was never in real danger. Arrests follow, conspiracy charges result, and substantial prison sentences ensue despite no actual harm.

Defense attorneys don’t contest that murder conspiracies should be punished when genuine. But the ease with which prosecutors prove conspiracy—lower evidentiary standards than substantive crimes, coconspirator statements admissible, withdrawal defenses rarely succeed—creates risk of overcharging. Every angry conversation, every drunken threat, every hypothetical discussion about violence could potentially become conspiracy if prosecutors find an “overt act” to attach to it.

Defending Conspiracy Charges: Challenging Agreement and Intent

Conspiracy prosecutions succeed when prosecutors prove: (1) an agreement existed, (2) the defendant knowingly participated in that agreement, (3) at least one conspirator committed an overt act in furtherance, and (4) the defendant intended the object of the conspiracy (murder) to be accomplished.

Defense strategy attacks these elements systematically. First, challenge whether a true agreement existed. Mere discussion isn’t agreement. Hypothetical conversations aren’t conspiracies. Expressing anger toward someone isn’t planning their murder. Prosecutors must show mutual understanding to commit a crime—a “meeting of the minds.” Evidence that the defendant was joking, speaking hypothetically, or merely venting frustration without serious intent undermines agreement.

Second, challenge whether the defendant intended the murder to occur. Did they genuinely want someone dead, or were they engaging in tough talk, fantasy, or bravado? Undercover operations complicate this analysis—when agents or informants drive the conspiracy forward, suggest methods, and provide resources, entrapment defenses arise. If the defendant lacked predisposition to commit murder and only participated because government agents created the opportunity and encouragement, the prosecution becomes constitutionally questionable.

Third, challenge the overt act. Was the alleged overt act truly in furtherance of murder, or does it have innocent explanations? Buying a gun—people buy guns legally every day. Conducting internet research on someone—that’s not inherently criminal. Following someone—could be coincidence or curiosity. Prosecutors must prove the act was done to further the conspiracy, not for unrelated reasons.

Fourth, assert withdrawal. If the defendant abandoned the conspiracy before any overt act occurred and communicated withdrawal to coconspirators, they may escape liability. Withdrawal is difficult to prove—courts require affirmative action to thwart the conspiracy, not mere passive non-participation—but when genuine abandonment occurs before the conspiracy progresses, it defeats liability.

Solicitation: Asking Someone Else to Commit Murder

Section 1117’s pairing with 18 U.S.C. § 373 (solicitation) means asking someone to commit murder—even if they refuse and no conspiracy forms—also falls under §2A1.5’s sentencing guidelines. Solicitation requires only that the defendant, with intent that murder be committed, commands, induces, or requests another person to commit it. No agreement necessary, no overt act required. The request itself is the crime.

Solicitation prosecutions often involve undercover agents. The defendant approaches someone (who happens to be law enforcement), offers money to kill a target, and gets arrested before any actual conspiracy forms. Under §2A1.5, solicitation to commit first-degree murder also receives offense level 33, with the +4 enhancement if payment was involved. The sentencing is identical to conspiracy despite solicitation being an even more incomplete crime—just asking, not even agreeing.

The Role of Cooperating Witnesses and Informants

Federal murder conspiracy cases rarely involve two private citizens genuinely planning a killing. More commonly, one participant is cooperating with law enforcement—a coconspirator who flipped, a confidential informant seeking payment or leniency in their own cases, or an undercover agent posing as a willing participant. These cases raise questions about whether conspiracies existed independent of government involvement.

When informants drive the conspiracy—suggesting the murder, offering to find killers, providing weapons, insisting the plan move forward despite the defendant’s hesitation—entrapment becomes viable. The question shifts from “did the defendant conspire?” to “would they have conspired without government agents creating the opportunity and inducement?” Entrapment doesn’t negate guilt if the defendant had predisposition to commit murder, but proving that predisposition becomes prosecutors’ burden.

Sentencing Advocacy for Conspiracy Convictions

Suppose your client is convicted of or pleads to conspiracy to commit murder under §2A1.5. How do you minimize the sentence?

First, emphasize that no murder occurred. The guideline already accounts for this through offense level 33 rather than 43, but reminding the court that no one died matters when judges exercise discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The seriousness of conspiracy is substantial, but it’s not equivalent to taking a life.

Second, secure acceptance of responsibility. That three-level reduction cuts roughly 3-4 years off sentences at this level. Demonstrating genuine remorse, acknowledging the danger the conspiracy created, and accepting responsibility for participating—even if maintaining the conspiracy wouldn’t have succeeded—helps significantly.

Third, present mitigation showing this was aberrational conduct. Lack of violence history, mental health struggles, substance abuse issues, or external pressures (financial desperation, manipulation by others) don’t excuse conspiracy but contextualize it as out-of-character behavior rather than pattern conduct.

Fourth, if the murder-for-hire enhancement applies, challenge whether “pecuniary value” was truly involved. Vague discussions of payment, promises never fulfilled, or nominal amounts that don’t constitute genuine hiring might not warrant the +4 enhancement. Every level matters—four levels at this offense level means 4-5 additional years.

Why Spodek Law Group for Federal Conspiracy Defense

Conspiracy charges are the federal government’s favorite prosecutorial tool because they’re easier to prove than substantive crimes and allow charging defendants for others’ conduct. When the object of the conspiracy is murder, stakes reach their highest—11-14 years (or more with enhancements) for plans that never produced actual violence. Todd Spodek built this firm defending clients where prosecutors leveraged conspiracy law to maximize sentences and where media coverage presumed guilt before trial began.

We’ve handled high-profile cases where government narratives dominated and where conspiracies alleged by prosecutors didn’t match the evidence. Our approach: challenge every element, demand proof of genuine agreement and intent, expose government overreach in undercover operations, and ensure sentences reflect what clients actually did rather than what prosecutors claim they planned. If you’re under investigation for or charged with federal murder conspiracy, contact us immediately. These cases often involve wiretaps, cooperating witnesses, and surveillance evidence that requires immediate analysis. We’re available 24/7 because conspiracy investigations move quickly—once prosecutors believe they have evidence of agreement and overt act, arrests follow. The quality of early representation determines whether charges proceed and what sentences follow conviction.