Liability & Use of Force - Assignment Example

Some state statutes actually necessitates that the other individual should have received the demand or request, and confirmation of commission about the overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Examples of such crimes include solicitation of murder, prostitution or bribery. In other statutes, solicitation crime takes place right away the asking occurs despite of what the outcomes of such a deed are whether or not, the solicited individual was ready and capable to conduct the offense or not.

States do have specific solicitation statutes as well as general solicitation statutes, such as obstruction of justice solicitation (Ross, 2012). A number of statures require specific corroboration necessity under general solicitation. A case in point is the Texas penal code section 15.03(b) which defines that any individual cannot be convicted under such section based on uncorroborated testimony of the individual purportedly solicited evidence (Gardner & Anderson, 2011). Two options are used when trying to prove that a defendant is guilty of solicitation crime.

Firstly, there is the provision of corroboration only a single witness plus corroborating evidence. Second, corroboration is provided by two witnesses, in addition to the corroborating evidence. Thus, under a solicitation crime, the corroborating evidence needs to link crime commission to the accused. That is why it is independent from witness confirmation facts. It may comprise acts, behavior, statements, as well as other circumstances that display a link of the defendant to the stated crime (Singer & La Fond, 2010).

Question 2 Conspiracy is substantiated when there is an accord to perform any illegal act. However, majority of the federal statutes necessitate that one of the co-conspirators should have commit an overt deed, such as assassination, abduction, defrauding of the government, or else commit a breach of a person civil rights in furthering the intentions of the conspiracy (Gardner & Anderson, 2011). Furthermore, there is no much consideration concerning which one of the supposed co-conspirators performed the overt act.

  Thus, it need not be a criminal deed, but just a single overt deed is sufficient to establish the reality of the conspiracy (Gaines & Miller, 2012). The reason being that without an overt action, it is not legally sufficient to validate that the said crime was performed with the declarant being conscious of the present conspiracy, and went further to get connected to such a crime intentionally. The rationalization is that the declarant collaborated positively inside the action, or just offered an agreement to collaborate, and which does not substantiate that they participated in the crime (Gardner & Anderson, 2011).

 Notably, the overt act cannot be brought against the other suspected co-conspirators, when it was not wished to further the broader intentions of the conspiracy. Nevertheless, it qualifies when both clandestinely planned to further the participant own individual purpose.  Moreover, the overt act need not be a subsequent autonomous act which follows the structure of the conspiracy. When it comes to multiple conspiracies, the defendant can be linked to different conspiracy, and the co-conspirator is the only individual permitted to tender