United States vs Recio - Research Paper Example

The two drivers help the police arrest two other individuals, Recio and Meza, the defendants in this case. The two truck drivers are found in possession of the illegal drugs together with Recio and Meza who come for the drugs, rounded up and charged with conspiracy to commit a criminal offence of distributing illegal drugs (www.oyez.org). It is clear that the two drivers were part of the conspiracy because they were actually found with the drugs. However, it requires careful interpretation of the law to determine whether Recio and Meza who are only arrested after police lays a sting by the help of the truck drivers, are also guilty of the offense.

The two, Recio and Meza, are tried in the Supreme Court and the jury find them guilty of conspiracy. The trial Judge advises that the precedence on similar case and the law dictates that conspiracy ends when its object is defeated by the government and so joining conspiracy scheme after seizure would be meaningless since the object of conspiracy would be impossible to achieve in such circumstances. Based on this, the trial judge orders a new trial and the new jury are advised on the circumstances of the seizure so as to be able to establish whether or not, Recio and Meza, joined the conspiracy before the seizure.

The Constitutional Issues in the Case Following the trial on the two counts of charges presented against the defendants, Jimenez Recio and Adrian Lopez i.e. possession of illegal drugs- marijuana and cocaine and the charge on distribution of illegal drugs, several constitutional issues emerge. It is clear that, there is an issue on the interpretation of the law of conspiracy as to when someone is deemed to have conspired. The law herein dictates that a person can only be found guilty of conspiracy if it can be proved that the person entered into conspiracy, before withdrawal of such intention or before the object of conspiracy was defeated by government intervention and the object became difficult to achieve.

The state fails to prove this but the defendants are found guilty by the jury on both trials. There is also a constitutional issue that emerges from the trial judge in the Supreme Court during the first trial, from an error in the jury instruction. The jury are not adequately informed on the requirement of the law in relation to the case before them. The jury is not advised on which circumstance the defendants are guilty of the charges and so they pass a verdict on the defendants being guilty without actually being able to ascertain their involvement in the conspiracy.

The other issue that emerge is the precedence on similar case notably United States versus Cruz and United States versus Castro which had similar circumstances but the courts argued that they joined the conspiracy when its object had been defeated and thus became impossible to achieve. If this was the case that was referred to, then the state had to provide evidence showing the involvement of Recio and Adriano Lopez to the conspiracy of drug possession with intent to distribution. This was obviously not achieved during the two trials at the Supreme Court.

The precedence on other cases provides a guideline and benchmark for ruling on subsequent cases. Decision of the case in terms of the vote In this case, the jury found the defendants guilty of both charges in a vote of 8 for guilty with 1 vote against the state, and thus becoming a unanimous vote. The defendants appealed against the vote and the case was remanded to the court of appeal which ruled that the conviction of guilty for both charges be removed. This was basing its argument on