Criminal Defense Lawyers

Challenging Circumstantial Evidence in Drug Conspiracy Cases

Challenging Circumstantial Evidence in Drug Conspiracy Cases

Being charged with a drug conspiracy can be scary. Conspiracy laws allow prosecutors to charge multiple people together for agreeing to commit a crime, even if they haven’t actually committed the crime yet. So you can end up facing serious charges and penalties without solid evidence against you.

Prosecutors often rely on circumstantial evidence to prove conspiracy charges. This means evidence that doesn’t directly prove you committed a crime, but allows them to make inferences that you were involved. Common examples include:

• Financial records showing suspicious transactions
• Travel records putting you in the same place as co-conspirators
• Phone records of calls between alleged co-conspirators
• Testimony from informants about overhearing plans

While circumstantial evidence can seem damning, there are strategies criminal defense attorneys use to challenge it. This article will discuss common defenses against circumstantial evidence in drug conspiracy cases.

Attack the Credibility of Informants

Police often use informants or cooperating witnesses to gather evidence in drug investigations. These are people caught committing crimes who agree to testify against others in exchange for leniency. Judges and juries are instructed to view informant testimony with caution, as they have a strong incentive to lie.

There are several ways for the defense to attack an informant’s credibility[1]:

• Highlight the benefits they received (reduced charges, cash payments) for cooperating
• Point out inconsistencies in their statements and testimony
• Present evidence of their history of dishonesty or criminal behavior
• Challenge their ability to accurately perceive or remember events

If the jury doesn’t believe the informant, they may disregard their testimony implicating you in the conspiracy.

Challenge the Interpretation of Circumstantial Evidence

Even if the circumstantial evidence itself is undisputed, the defense can challenge the prosecutor’s spin on what it proves. For example, just because you were in the same location as an alleged co-conspirator doesn’t necessarily mean you were conspiring with them. Your lawyer can argue alternate explanations for the evidence that point away from your involvement.

Your lawyer may also argue that the evidence doesn’t directly prove your knowledge of or agreement to join the conspiracy. After all, conspiracy requires proof that you specifically intended to break the law with others[2]. Evidence putting you near criminal activity isn’t enough.

Argue You Were Merely “Present”

A common defense in conspiracy cases is that while you were present around criminal activity, you didn’t actually participate or agree to participate. This is known as a “mere presence” defense[3].

Your lawyer could argue to the jury that just because you hung around people involved in drug trafficking doesn’t make you a co-conspirator. You have to take active steps to advance the conspiracy to be guilty.

A mere presence defense is strongest when there is no evidence you helped plan or commit the underlying crime. But it can be used even if you had minor involvement, arguing you didn’t understand the full scope of the conspiracy.

Claim You Withdrew From the Conspiracy

Let’s say there’s clear evidence you agreed to participate in a drug conspiracy at some point. A defense that could still get you acquitted is that you withdrew from the conspiracy before the main criminal objective was completed.

To successfully claim you withdrew[4], your defense lawyer would have to show:

• You took some affirmative step to disavow the conspiracy, such as notifying other participants you were leaving
• You stopped all participation and took steps to prevent the conspiracy from continuing, to the extent of your power
• You didn’t take these steps just because the conspiracy was doomed to fail or it became too difficult

If proven, withdrawal from a conspiracy before its completion can remove liability for subsequent acts committed by remaining members. But you can still be tried for your involvement up until the point you withdrew.

Request a “Buyer-Seller” Jury Instruction

Buyer-seller jury instructions explain that a simple drug buyer-seller relationship doesn’t amount to a drug conspiracy. This principle comes from court rulings that isolated sales between a willing buyer and seller aren’t enough to prove they agreed to advance drug trafficking overall[5].

These instructions clarify that someone who simply buys or sells drugs could still be guilty of possession or distribution. But they caution juries that multiple drug transactions alone don’t necessarily prove a conspiracy.

Your lawyer may request buyer-seller instructions to counter evidence you bought or sold drugs from the alleged co-conspirators. This helps prevent “guilt by association” when the evidence doesn’t show you shared their common distribution purpose.

Challenge Overt Acts as “Preparation” Rather than Advancement

Conspiracy charges require alleging you committed an “overt act” to advance the conspiracy’s goals. But your lawyer can argue the government’s evidence reflects mere preparation for criminal activity, not actual advancement towards achieving it.

For example, acts like buying small quantities of supplies, arranging meetings, or gathering information may merely lay the groundwork for future planned crimes. While preparation can provide circumstantial proof of intent, your lawyer can dispute whether it crosses the line into an overt act in furtherance of the overall conspiracy.

Challenge Statements as “Hearsay”

Since conspirators are considered partners in crime, one conspirator’s statements are admissible evidence against other members. But defense lawyers scrutinize this co-conspirator testimony exception to the hearsay rule and frequently move to exclude it.

Common attacks on co-conspirator hearsay statements include:

• Questioning whether independent evidence shows a conspiracy involving the defendant even existed
• Challenging whether the statement was made to advance or conceal the conspiracy
• Disputing whether the statement was made during the conspiracy or after it ended

If hearsay statements are successfully excluded, it prevents potentially unreliable evidence from being used to convict you.