Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Conspiracy Liability
20 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Conspiracy LiabilityQuestion 1 of 20

Three individuals agree to counterfeit and pass $100 bills. The first person buys the specialized paper. The second person prints the fake bills. The third person's job is to take the finished bills and use them at various retail stores. Before the third person can spend any of the money, all three are arrested.

The third person argues that he cannot be convicted of conspiracy because he did not personally commit an overt act, as his role was to occur last. In a jurisdiction requiring an overt act for a conspiracy conviction, is this defense valid? Select one.

Yes, because each member of a conspiracy must personally commit an overt act to be held liable.
Yes, because his planned actions were never performed, so his involvement never went beyond the agreement stage.
No, because the act of printing the bills by the second person was the substantive crime itself, which merges the conspiracy.
No, because the act of buying the paper by the first person was an overt act attributable to all members of the conspiracy.
← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Conspiracy Liability

Practice Conspiracy Liability in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Conspiracy Liability, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Three individuals agree to counterfeit and pass $100 bills. The first person buys the specialized paper. The second person prints the fake bills. The third person's job is to take the finished bills and use them at various retail stores. Before the third person can spend any of the money, all three are arrested.

The third person argues that he cannot be convicted of conspiracy because he did not personally commit an overt act, as his role was to occur last. In a jurisdiction requiring an overt act for a conspiracy conviction, is this defense valid? Select one.

  1. Yes, because each member of a conspiracy must personally commit an overt act to be held liable.
  2. Yes, because his planned actions were never performed, so his involvement never went beyond the agreement stage.
  3. No, because the act of printing the bills by the second person was the substantive crime itself, which merges the conspiracy.
  4. No, because the act of buying the paper by the first person was an overt act attributable to all members of the conspiracy. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter conspiracy questions, remember that conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime, and in many jurisdictions, the prosecution must prove an overt act was taken in furtherance of the conspiracy. The key principle is that any conspirator's overt act is attributable to all members of the conspiracy. In this scenario, the first person buying specialized paper constitutes an overt act taken in furtherance of the counterfeiting conspiracy. Once any member of the conspiracy commits an overt act, all conspirators become liable for the conspiracy, regardless of whether they personally performed an overt act. The third person's argument fails because he doesn't need to personally commit an overt act - the first person's purchase of paper satisfies the overt act requirement for all three conspirators. Looking at the wrong answers: (A) incorrectly suggests each conspirator must personally commit an overt act, but conspiracy law holds all members responsible for any member's overt acts. (B) is wrong because the third person's personal performance isn't required - the conspiracy was complete when others committed overt acts in furtherance of their agreement. (C) misapplies the merger doctrine; while conspiracy typically doesn't merge with the completed substantive crime, here the substantive crime (counterfeiting) wasn't actually completed, and this doesn't address the overt act requirement anyway. Remember this key conspiracy principle: one conspirator's overt act satisfies the requirement for all conspirators. Individual performance by each member isn't necessary once the conspiracy is formed and any overt act occurs.

Question 2

A defendant wanted to have his competitor's warehouse burned down. He contacted a man who he thought was an arsonist for hire. The 'arsonist' was actually an undercover police officer. The defendant and the officer met, and the defendant explicitly agreed to pay the officer $20,000 to commit the arson. The defendant then gave the officer a down payment of $5,000 and a map of the warehouse. The defendant was arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit arson in a jurisdiction that follows the common law bilateral approach to conspiracy.

Is the defendant likely to be convicted of conspiracy? Select one.

  1. Yes, because he possessed the specific intent to have the crime committed and performed an overt act in furtherance of the agreement.
  2. Yes, because the officer's feigned agreement is sufficient to form a conspiracy, as the defendant believed a true agreement existed.
  3. No, because the police officer did not genuinely agree to commit the crime, so there was no 'meeting of the minds' as required by the bilateral approach. (correct answer)
  4. No, because legal impossibility is a defense, as the officer's status made it impossible for the crime to actually be committed as planned.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. The common law follows a bilateral approach to conspiracy, which requires an actual agreement between at least two people who each possess a genuine criminal intent. Because the police officer only feigned agreement and never intended to commit the crime, there was no true 'meeting of the minds' or corrupt agreement. Therefore, no conspiracy was formed. A is incorrect because while the defendant had the required mens rea and performed an overt act, he lacked a coconspirator with the same intent. B describes the unilateral approach to conspiracy (followed by the Model Penal Code), not the common law bilateral approach. D is incorrect because the defense would be based on the lack of agreement, not impossibility.

Question 3

Two women successfully conspired to rob a federally insured bank. They escaped with the money and divided it at a safe house. A week later, one of the women was questioned by the FBI. During the interview, she lied about her whereabouts on the day of the robbery to conceal her and her partner's involvement. The other woman was not present and had no knowledge of the interview.

The woman who lied to the FBI was charged with making false statements to a federal agent. The prosecutor also charges the other woman with this crime on a conspiracy theory of liability. Is the second woman likely to be convicted of making false statements? Select one.

  1. Yes, because acts of concealment after the main objective is complete are still considered to be in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  2. No, because the central purpose of the conspiracy was completed when the bank was robbed and the money was divided. (correct answer)
  3. Yes, because the conspiracy continues until all proceeds of the crime have been spent and all conspirators are no longer at risk of apprehension.
  4. No, because lying to the police is a personal act that cannot be imputed to another person under any theory of liability.
Explanation: This question tests your understanding of when a conspiracy ends and how far liability extends for acts committed after the main criminal objective is achieved. In conspiracy law, participants are generally liable for reasonably foreseeable acts committed by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy. However, this liability has temporal limits. The key principle is that a conspiracy typically ends when its central purpose is accomplished, unless there's an explicit agreement to commit additional crimes or engage in ongoing concealment activities. Here, the conspiracy's purpose was to rob the bank and divide the proceeds. Once that objective was completed, the conspiracy ended. The first woman's decision to lie to the FBI was a spontaneous, personal act of self-preservation made without the second woman's knowledge or participation. Since no ongoing concealment was planned as part of the original conspiracy, this false statement falls outside the scope of their criminal agreement. Answer A is wrong because not all acts of concealment automatically further a conspiracy—only those that are reasonably foreseeable and within the conspiracy's scope. Answer C incorrectly suggests conspiracies continue indefinitely until all risks disappear, which would make conspiracy liability virtually endless. Answer D is too broad; while lying to police can be a personal act, co-conspirators can be liable for such acts if they occur within the conspiracy's scope and timeframe. When analyzing conspiracy duration, focus on whether the main criminal objective is complete and whether additional crimes were specifically planned. Don't assume liability extends indefinitely to every subsequent act by a co-conspirator.

Question 4

Two men working at a loading dock observe their supervisor regularly leaving a valuable shipment of electronics unattended for a few minutes each day. Without speaking a word, one man makes eye contact with the other and gestures toward the shipment. The second man nods. The first man then distracts the supervisor while the second man takes a box of the electronics and hides it. They are later caught and charged with conspiracy to commit theft.

The second man argues he cannot be convicted of conspiracy because there was no explicit, spoken agreement to commit the crime. Is this argument likely to succeed? Select one.

  1. Yes, because the 'agreement' element of conspiracy requires a verbal or written expression of a meeting of the minds.
  2. Yes, because the non-verbal gestures are too ambiguous to prove the specific intent required for a conspiracy conviction.
  3. No, because the successful completion of the theft creates an irrebuttable presumption that a prior agreement existed.
  4. No, because an agreement to commit a crime can be inferred from the coordinated actions and conduct of the parties. (correct answer)
Explanation: Criminal conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime, plus an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. A critical point many students miss is that this agreement doesn't need to be formal, written, or even spoken aloud. The correct answer is D because conspiracy law recognizes that criminals rarely announce their intentions explicitly. Courts routinely allow agreements to be proven through circumstantial evidence, including coordinated conduct that demonstrates a mutual understanding. Here, the eye contact, gestures, nod, and subsequent coordinated roles (one distracting while the other steals) clearly show an implicit agreement to commit theft together. Answer A is wrong because conspiracy law has never required verbal or written agreements. If this were true, most conspiracy prosecutions would fail, as criminals typically communicate covertly. Answer B misunderstands the evidence standard - while the gestures alone might be ambiguous, when combined with the coordinated theft that followed, they provide strong evidence of agreement and specific intent. Answer C creates a legal rule that doesn't exist. Successful completion of the underlying crime doesn't create any "irrebuttable presumption" of prior agreement, though it can serve as evidence supporting the conspiracy charge. Study tip: Remember that conspiracy is an "inchoate" (incomplete) crime that's complete once the agreement is formed and any overt act occurs. Prosecutors can prove agreements through circumstantial evidence, including coordinated behavior that demonstrates mutual understanding. Look for patterns of coordinated conduct rather than explicit communications.

Question 5

A drug distributor supplied large quantities of heroin to a mid-level dealer. The mid-level dealer, in turn, supplied several street-level sellers. The distributor knew the mid-level dealer was selling to others, but he did not know the identity of the street-level sellers and had no direct contact with them. The success of the distributor's operation was dependent on the entire network functioning to move the product to consumers. One of the street-level sellers was arrested.

The prosecutor charges the distributor with conspiracy with the arrested street-level seller. What is the likely outcome? Select one.

  1. Conviction, because this is a 'chain' conspiracy where all participants are considered to have agreed to the common criminal objective. (correct answer)
  2. Conviction, because the distributor is the leader of the organization and is therefore responsible for the actions of all its members.
  3. Acquittal, because the distributor never personally met or agreed with the street-level seller.
  4. Acquittal, because the distributor and the street-level seller are in a buyer-seller relationship, which precludes a conspiracy conviction.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. This scenario describes a classic 'chain' conspiracy, common in drug distribution networks. In a chain conspiracy, participants at different levels (e.g., supplier, middleman, retailer) are considered part of a single conspiracy if they know they are part of a larger enterprise and that the success of each link in the chain depends on the others. Here, the distributor knew the dealer was part of a larger network, and his success depended on it. Therefore, he can be convicted of conspiring with the other links in the chain, even without direct contact. C is incorrect because direct agreement is not necessary. D is incorrect because while a simple one-time buyer-seller relationship may not be a conspiracy, this ongoing, interdependent network is.

Question 6

Two partners in a failing business conspired to commit arson by burning down their own warehouse to collect the insurance money. One partner was tasked with dousing the building in accelerant and setting the fire, while the other was to serve as a lookout from a car down the street. A fire broke out as planned. An responding firefighter was trapped by a collapsing roof and died. The partner who was acting as the lookout is charged with felony murder.

What is the most likely basis for the lookout's conviction for felony murder? Select one.

  1. As a coconspirator, he is vicariously liable for the foreseeable consequences of the arson, and a firefighter's death is a foreseeable result of arson. (correct answer)
  2. He had the specific intent to kill the firefighter, which can be inferred from the inherently dangerous nature of arson.
  3. He is strictly liable for any death that occurs during the commission of a felony, regardless of foreseeability.
  4. His role as a lookout makes him a principal in the second degree to the arson, but not to the resulting death.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. The lookout is liable for felony murder through the doctrine of vicarious liability. As a member of the conspiracy to commit arson (an inherently dangerous felony), he is responsible for any death that is a natural and probable consequence of the felony. The death of a firefighter is a classic example of a foreseeable result of arson. B is incorrect because felony murder specifically does not require a specific intent to kill. C is incorrect because while some formulations of felony murder are very broad, liability is typically limited by a concept of proximate cause or foreseeability. D is incorrect because his liability as a principal in the arson extends to the foreseeable consequences, including the death.

Question 7

A federal statute prohibits transporting a person across state lines for immoral purposes. The statute was enacted to protect victims of trafficking. A woman, wishing to engage in prostitution in another state, paid a man to drive her there. Both knew the purpose of the trip was for the woman to engage in prostitution. Both were arrested and charged with conspiracy to violate the statute.

The woman moves to dismiss the conspiracy charge against her. What is her best argument? Select one.

  1. She cannot be charged with conspiracy because, as a member of the class of persons the statute was designed to protect, she cannot be guilty of conspiring to violate it. (correct answer)
  2. She cannot be charged with conspiracy because she was the 'victim' of the crime and thus lacked the required criminal intent.
  3. She cannot be charged with conspiracy under Wharton's Rule, because the substantive offense requires at least two people (a transporter and a person transported).
  4. She cannot be charged with conspiracy because her agreement with the man constitutes a protected form of association under the First Amendment.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. There is a well-established exception to conspiracy liability where the target statute is designed to protect a certain class of people. A member of that protected class cannot be convicted of conspiracy to violate that statute, even if they willingly participated. This is because the legislature is deemed to have already considered their culpability and decided against punishing them. B is incorrect because she did have the intent to make the trip for the prohibited purpose; her defense is based on her status, not her intent. C is incorrect because Wharton's Rule would not apply if the purpose is to protect one of the parties. D is incorrect as there is no First Amendment protection for agreements to commit crimes.

Question 8

A corporate executive and her subordinate conspired to violate federal securities laws by engaging in insider trading. They agreed to use non-public information to purchase stock in another company. The executive provided the information, and the subordinate executed the trades. They made a significant profit. The subordinate was granted immunity and testified against the executive.

At trial, the executive argues she cannot be convicted of conspiracy because her only alleged coconspirator was granted immunity, meaning there is no one left to have conspired with. How should the court rule on this argument? Select one.

  1. Sustain the argument, because a conviction for conspiracy requires that at least two persons be convicted of the crime.
  2. Sustain the argument, because the grant of immunity retroactively nullifies the subordinate's criminal intent.
  3. Overrule the argument, but only if the prosecution can prove the executive conspired with another, unknown person.
  4. Overrule the argument, because the grant of immunity to one conspirator does not preclude the conviction of another conspirator. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter conspiracy questions on the bar exam, focus on the fundamental principle that conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime. The key insight is that what happens after the conspiracy is formed doesn't retroactively undo the original agreement. The court should overrule the executive's argument because a conspiracy was validly formed when both parties agreed to engage in insider trading with criminal intent. The subordinate's later immunity deal is purely a prosecutorial tool that doesn't erase the fact that a criminal conspiracy once existed. The agreement was real, the criminal intent was present, and overt acts were taken in furtherance of the conspiracy. Answer A is incorrect because conspiracy law doesn't require that all conspirators be convicted—only that a valid conspiracy existed. One conspirator can be convicted while others receive immunity, die, or flee jurisdiction. Answer B misunderstands immunity's purpose—it's a tactical prosecution decision that doesn't retroactively eliminate the recipient's original criminal intent or participation. The subordinate still conspired; they're just not being prosecuted for it. Answer C creates an unnecessary requirement—there's no need to prove additional unknown conspirators when you have clear evidence of the original two-party agreement. Remember this distinction: conspiracy focuses on the formation of the criminal agreement, not the ultimate prosecution outcomes. Immunity deals are common prosecution strategies that don't invalidate the underlying criminal conspiracy that already occurred.

Question 9

A defendant learned that a professional burglar was planning to break into a specific mansion. The defendant, a rival of the mansion's owner, wanted the burglary to succeed. Without ever speaking to or entering into an agreement with the burglar, the defendant anonymously mailed the burglar a detailed floor plan of the mansion, highlighting the location of a hidden safe. The burglar used the floor plan to successfully commit the burglary.

The defendant is charged with conspiracy to commit burglary. Which of the following is the defendant's best argument for acquittal? Select one.

  1. He did not commit an overt act in furtherance of the burglary.
  2. He never formed an agreement with the burglar. (correct answer)
  3. He did not share in the proceeds of the burglary.
  4. He can only be liable if he was present at the scene of the crime.
Explanation: This question tests your understanding of the essential elements of conspiracy, which requires both an agreement between parties and intent to commit the underlying crime. The correct answer is B because conspiracy fundamentally requires an agreement or meeting of minds between two or more people. Here, the defendant never communicated with or formed any agreement with the burglar - he simply sent an anonymous floor plan without the burglar's knowledge of who sent it or why. Without mutual understanding or agreement to work together toward the criminal goal, there can be no conspiracy, regardless of how much the defendant wanted to help. Choice A is incorrect because not all jurisdictions require an overt act for conspiracy (it's often required, but the agreement itself is the core element), and even where required, mailing the floor plan could constitute such an act. Choice C is wrong because sharing proceeds is never an element of conspiracy - the crime is complete upon agreement with intent, regardless of whether profits are divided. Choice D is false because physical presence at the crime scene is irrelevant to conspiracy liability; conspirators can be miles away when the substantive crime occurs. The defendant might face charges for aiding and abetting the burglary, since he did provide substantial assistance, but conspiracy requires that mutual agreement element that's missing here. Study tip: Remember that conspiracy is essentially an "agreement crime." When you see conspiracy questions, immediately ask: "Was there a meeting of minds between the parties?" If not, conspiracy fails regardless of how much help was provided.

Question 10

A team of three hackers conspired to breach a corporation's computer network and steal proprietary data. They successfully executed their plan over several weeks, exfiltrating terabytes of sensitive information which they then sold. The prosecutor charged each hacker with the substantive crime of unauthorized access to a computer system and also with conspiracy to commit the same crime. All three were convicted of both offenses at trial.

On appeal, the hackers argue that their convictions for both conspiracy and the completed crime violate the merger doctrine. What is the likely outcome of this appeal? Select one.

  1. The convictions will be upheld, because conspiracy is a distinct crime that does not merge with the completed target offense. (correct answer)
  2. The conspiracy convictions will be vacated, because the crime of conspiracy merges into the completed substantive offense.
  3. The substantive convictions will be vacated, because the conspiracy charge encompasses all acts done in furtherance of it.
  4. The convictions will be upheld only if the conspiracy had objectives beyond the completed crime, otherwise the conspiracy charge merges.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. Unlike solicitation and attempt, the crime of conspiracy does not merge with the completed substantive offense. Conspiracy is considered a separate and distinct crime, punishing the agreement itself and the special danger posed by group criminality. A defendant can be convicted of and punished for both conspiracy to commit a crime and the crime itself. B is incorrect because it applies the merger rule for other inchoate offenses to conspiracy. C is an incorrect statement of the law. D introduces a condition that is not required; the non-merger rule applies even if the conspiracy's only objective was the crime that was completed.

Question 11

You are representing a client who was recently arrested. The police allege she was part of a long-running scheme to import stolen luxury cars. The evidence shows the conspiracy began two years ago. Your client, however, only became involved six months ago when she was hired to create fraudulent title documents for the cars. She was unaware of any specific importations that occurred before she joined, but she knew she was part of an ongoing criminal operation. The leader of the scheme was just arrested for an importation that occurred one year ago.

The prosecutor has indicated they may charge your client with conspiracy related to the importation that occurred one year ago. What is your strongest argument against this charge? Select one.

  1. A person cannot be convicted of a conspiracy that was already in existence before they became involved.
  2. A person is liable for the crime of conspiracy, but not for substantive crimes committed by the conspiracy before that person joined. (correct answer)
  3. A person is only liable for the specific acts they agreed to perform, which for your client was creating documents, not importation.
  4. A person cannot join a conspiracy without knowing the identities of all other members and the full history of its operations.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. A person who joins an ongoing conspiracy can be held liable for the crime of conspiracy itself. However, they are not retroactively liable for substantive crimes committed by coconspirators before they joined the conspiracy. They are only liable for foreseeable substantive crimes committed after they joined. Therefore, the client would not be liable for the importation that happened a year ago. A is incorrect; one can join an existing conspiracy. C is incorrect because under Pinkerton, a conspirator is liable for foreseeable crimes of others in the conspiracy, not just their own acts. D is incorrect as a conspirator does not need to know all members or details of the conspiracy.

Question 12

A man devised a scheme to defraud Medicare. He conspired separately with three different medical clinics. Each clinic agreed to provide the man with patient data, which he would use to submit false claims. The man told each clinic he was working with others, but the clinics did not know each other's identities and operated independently. Their only common connection was the man. After the scheme was uncovered, the owner of one clinic was charged with being part of a single, large conspiracy involving the man and the other two clinics.

What is the clinic owner's best argument for why he should not be convicted of being part of the single, large conspiracy? Select one.

  1. That the evidence shows multiple separate conspiracies radiating from a central hub, rather than a single chain or wheel conspiracy with a common rim. (correct answer)
  2. That because he did not know the identity of the other clinic owners, he could not have formed the requisite agreement with them.
  3. That his clinic's success was not dependent on the success of the other clinics, indicating they were competitors, not coconspirators.
  4. That since the man was the only party to every agreement, only the man can be charged with a single, large conspiracy.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. This scenario describes a 'hub-and-spoke' conspiracy. For all parties (the 'spokes') to be part of a single conspiracy, the prosecution must prove they were all connected by a 'rim'—a common agreement or community of interest beyond their individual connection to the 'hub' (the man). Without evidence of a rim, there are just multiple separate conspiracies between the hub and each spoke. A correctly identifies this legal structure and provides the best defense. B is incorrect because conspirators do not need to know each other's identities, only that they exist and are part of a larger scheme. C points to a relevant fact (lack of interdependence) that supports the conclusion in A, but A states the overarching legal argument more accurately. D is an incorrect statement of law; the issue is whether the spokes can be tied together, not what the hub can be charged with.

Question 13

A corporate executive and her subordinate conspired to violate federal securities laws by engaging in insider trading. They agreed to use non-public information to purchase stock in another company. The executive provided the information, and the subordinate executed the trades. They made a significant profit. The subordinate was granted immunity and testified against the executive.

At trial, the executive argues she cannot be convicted of conspiracy because her only alleged coconspirator was granted immunity, meaning there is no one left to have conspired with. How should the court rule on this argument? Select one.

  1. Sustain the argument, because a conviction for conspiracy requires that at least two persons be convicted of the crime.
  2. Sustain the argument, because the grant of immunity retroactively nullifies the subordinate's criminal intent.
  3. Overrule the argument, but only if the prosecution can prove the executive conspired with another, unknown person.
  4. Overrule the argument, because the grant of immunity to one conspirator does not preclude the conviction of another conspirator. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter conspiracy questions on the bar exam, focus on the fundamental principle that conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime. The key insight is that what happens after the conspiracy is formed doesn't retroactively undo the original agreement. The court should overrule the executive's argument because a conspiracy was validly formed when both parties agreed to engage in insider trading with criminal intent. The subordinate's later immunity deal is purely a prosecutorial tool that doesn't erase the fact that a criminal conspiracy once existed. The agreement was real, the criminal intent was present, and overt acts were taken in furtherance of the conspiracy. Answer A is incorrect because conspiracy law doesn't require that all conspirators be convicted—only that a valid conspiracy existed. One conspirator can be convicted while others receive immunity, die, or flee jurisdiction. Answer B misunderstands immunity's purpose—it's a tactical prosecution decision that doesn't retroactively eliminate the recipient's original criminal intent or participation. The subordinate still conspired; they're just not being prosecuted for it. Answer C creates an unnecessary requirement—there's no need to prove additional unknown conspirators when you have clear evidence of the original two-party agreement. Remember this distinction: conspiracy focuses on the formation of the criminal agreement, not the ultimate prosecution outcomes. Immunity deals are common prosecution strategies that don't invalidate the underlying criminal conspiracy that already occurred.

Question 14

A defendant conspired with an informant to purchase what he believed were illegal, unregistered machine guns from the informant. The informant was working with the police. The guns the informant planned to sell to the defendant were actually non-functional, disabled firearms supplied by the police department. The defendant met the informant, inspected the disabled weapons, and handed over a bag of cash. He was immediately arrested and charged with conspiracy to illegally possess machine guns.

The defendant moves to dismiss the charge, arguing that it was impossible for him to complete the target offense because the guns were non-functional. How is the court likely to rule? Select one.

  1. Grant the motion, because legal impossibility is a complete defense to conspiracy.
  2. Grant the motion, because the defendant could not have formed the necessary intent to possess functional machine guns when the guns were disabled.
  3. Deny the motion, because factual impossibility is not a defense to conspiracy when the defendant intended to commit a crime. (correct answer)
  4. Deny the motion, but only if the jurisdiction follows the unilateral theory of conspiracy.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. Factual impossibility—where the defendant's intended crime is impossible to complete due to some unknown fact or circumstance—is not a defense to conspiracy (or attempt). The defendant's culpability is measured by the circumstances as he believed them to be. Here, the defendant believed he was conspiring to buy functional machine guns; the fact that they were disabled is a classic example of factual impossibility. A is incorrect because this is a case of factual, not legal, impossibility. B is incorrect because the defendant's intent is judged by what he believed he was doing. D is incorrect because while the conspiracy charge would fail on other grounds in a bilateral jurisdiction (due to the informant's lack of intent), the defense of impossibility would fail regardless of the jurisdiction's approach to the agreement element.

Question 15

You are representing a client who was recently arrested. The police allege she was part of a long-running scheme to import stolen luxury cars. The evidence shows the conspiracy began two years ago. Your client, however, only became involved six months ago when she was hired to create fraudulent title documents for the cars. She was unaware of any specific importations that occurred before she joined, but she knew she was part of an ongoing criminal operation. The leader of the scheme was just arrested for an importation that occurred one year ago.

The prosecutor has indicated they may charge your client with conspiracy related to the importation that occurred one year ago. What is your strongest argument against this charge? Select one.

  1. A person cannot be convicted of a conspiracy that was already in existence before they became involved.
  2. A person is liable for the crime of conspiracy, but not for substantive crimes committed by the conspiracy before that person joined. (correct answer)
  3. A person is only liable for the specific acts they agreed to perform, which for your client was creating documents, not importation.
  4. A person cannot join a conspiracy without knowing the identities of all other members and the full history of its operations.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. A person who joins an ongoing conspiracy can be held liable for the crime of conspiracy itself. However, they are not retroactively liable for substantive crimes committed by coconspirators before they joined the conspiracy. They are only liable for foreseeable substantive crimes committed after they joined. Therefore, the client would not be liable for the importation that happened a year ago. A is incorrect; one can join an existing conspiracy. C is incorrect because under Pinkerton, a conspirator is liable for foreseeable crimes of others in the conspiracy, not just their own acts. D is incorrect as a conspirator does not need to know all members or details of the conspiracy.

Question 16

Two women successfully conspired to rob a federally insured bank. They escaped with the money and divided it at a safe house. A week later, one of the women was questioned by the FBI. During the interview, she lied about her whereabouts on the day of the robbery to conceal her and her partner's involvement. The other woman was not present and had no knowledge of the interview.

The woman who lied to the FBI was charged with making false statements to a federal agent. The prosecutor also charges the other woman with this crime on a conspiracy theory of liability. Is the second woman likely to be convicted of making false statements? Select one.

  1. Yes, because acts of concealment after the main objective is complete are still considered to be in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  2. No, because the central purpose of the conspiracy was completed when the bank was robbed and the money was divided. (correct answer)
  3. Yes, because the conspiracy continues until all proceeds of the crime have been spent and all conspirators are no longer at risk of apprehension.
  4. No, because lying to the police is a personal act that cannot be imputed to another person under any theory of liability.
Explanation: This question tests your understanding of when a conspiracy ends and how far liability extends for acts committed after the main criminal objective is achieved. In conspiracy law, participants are generally liable for reasonably foreseeable acts committed by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy. However, this liability has temporal limits. The key principle is that a conspiracy typically ends when its central purpose is accomplished, unless there's an explicit agreement to commit additional crimes or engage in ongoing concealment activities. Here, the conspiracy's purpose was to rob the bank and divide the proceeds. Once that objective was completed, the conspiracy ended. The first woman's decision to lie to the FBI was a spontaneous, personal act of self-preservation made without the second woman's knowledge or participation. Since no ongoing concealment was planned as part of the original conspiracy, this false statement falls outside the scope of their criminal agreement. Answer A is wrong because not all acts of concealment automatically further a conspiracy—only those that are reasonably foreseeable and within the conspiracy's scope. Answer C incorrectly suggests conspiracies continue indefinitely until all risks disappear, which would make conspiracy liability virtually endless. Answer D is too broad; while lying to police can be a personal act, co-conspirators can be liable for such acts if they occur within the conspiracy's scope and timeframe. When analyzing conspiracy duration, focus on whether the main criminal objective is complete and whether additional crimes were specifically planned. Don't assume liability extends indefinitely to every subsequent act by a co-conspirator.

Question 17

Three individuals agree to counterfeit and pass $100 bills. The first person buys the specialized paper. The second person prints the fake bills. The third person's job is to take the finished bills and use them at various retail stores. Before the third person can spend any of the money, all three are arrested.

The third person argues that he cannot be convicted of conspiracy because he did not personally commit an overt act, as his role was to occur last. In a jurisdiction requiring an overt act for a conspiracy conviction, is this defense valid? Select one.

  1. Yes, because each member of a conspiracy must personally commit an overt act to be held liable.
  2. Yes, because his planned actions were never performed, so his involvement never went beyond the agreement stage.
  3. No, because the act of printing the bills by the second person was the substantive crime itself, which merges the conspiracy.
  4. No, because the act of buying the paper by the first person was an overt act attributable to all members of the conspiracy. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter conspiracy questions, remember that conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime, and in many jurisdictions, the prosecution must prove an overt act was taken in furtherance of the conspiracy. The key principle is that any conspirator's overt act is attributable to all members of the conspiracy. In this scenario, the first person buying specialized paper constitutes an overt act taken in furtherance of the counterfeiting conspiracy. Once any member of the conspiracy commits an overt act, all conspirators become liable for the conspiracy, regardless of whether they personally performed an overt act. The third person's argument fails because he doesn't need to personally commit an overt act - the first person's purchase of paper satisfies the overt act requirement for all three conspirators. Looking at the wrong answers: (A) incorrectly suggests each conspirator must personally commit an overt act, but conspiracy law holds all members responsible for any member's overt acts. (B) is wrong because the third person's personal performance isn't required - the conspiracy was complete when others committed overt acts in furtherance of their agreement. (C) misapplies the merger doctrine; while conspiracy typically doesn't merge with the completed substantive crime, here the substantive crime (counterfeiting) wasn't actually completed, and this doesn't address the overt act requirement anyway. Remember this key conspiracy principle: one conspirator's overt act satisfies the requirement for all conspirators. Individual performance by each member isn't necessary once the conspiracy is formed and any overt act occurs.

Question 18

A man and a woman agree to rob a postal worker. The man's role is to act as the getaway driver, while the woman will confront the worker and take the mailbags. On the day of the robbery, the woman approaches the postal worker, but instead of robbing him, she pulls out a gun and shoots him due to a personal grudge, then flees without taking anything. The man, who was waiting in the car and saw the shooting, drives away.

The man is charged with conspiracy to commit robbery and with murder. What is his best defense to the murder charge? Select one.

  1. The conspiracy's objective was robbery, not murder, and the shooting was an independent act of the woman not in furtherance of the conspiracy. (correct answer)
  2. He effectively withdrew from the conspiracy by driving away after witnessing the shooting, severing his liability.
  3. He cannot be convicted of murder because he was not armed and did not personally commit the homicidal act.
  4. The murder was not completed because the postal worker survived the shooting, so he can only be charged with attempted murder.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. For a conspirator to be liable for a coconspirator's crime, the crime must be foreseeable and in furtherance of the conspiracy. Here, the conspiracy was for robbery. The woman's act of shooting the postal worker out of a personal grudge, without even attempting the robbery, was not in furtherance of their agreed-upon plan. It was her own independent act. B is incorrect because his withdrawal occurred after the crime was committed and would be ineffective. C is incorrect because a coconspirator can be liable for murder even if unarmed. D addresses the degree of the crime, not the man's underlying liability for the woman's act.

Question 19

A defendant learned that a professional burglar was planning to break into a specific mansion. The defendant, a rival of the mansion's owner, wanted the burglary to succeed. Without ever speaking to or entering into an agreement with the burglar, the defendant anonymously mailed the burglar a detailed floor plan of the mansion, highlighting the location of a hidden safe. The burglar used the floor plan to successfully commit the burglary.

The defendant is charged with conspiracy to commit burglary. Which of the following is the defendant's best argument for acquittal? Select one.

  1. He did not commit an overt act in furtherance of the burglary.
  2. He never formed an agreement with the burglar. (correct answer)
  3. He did not share in the proceeds of the burglary.
  4. He can only be liable if he was present at the scene of the crime.
Explanation: This question tests your understanding of the essential elements of conspiracy, which requires both an agreement between parties and intent to commit the underlying crime. The correct answer is B because conspiracy fundamentally requires an agreement or meeting of minds between two or more people. Here, the defendant never communicated with or formed any agreement with the burglar - he simply sent an anonymous floor plan without the burglar's knowledge of who sent it or why. Without mutual understanding or agreement to work together toward the criminal goal, there can be no conspiracy, regardless of how much the defendant wanted to help. Choice A is incorrect because not all jurisdictions require an overt act for conspiracy (it's often required, but the agreement itself is the core element), and even where required, mailing the floor plan could constitute such an act. Choice C is wrong because sharing proceeds is never an element of conspiracy - the crime is complete upon agreement with intent, regardless of whether profits are divided. Choice D is false because physical presence at the crime scene is irrelevant to conspiracy liability; conspirators can be miles away when the substantive crime occurs. The defendant might face charges for aiding and abetting the burglary, since he did provide substantial assistance, but conspiracy requires that mutual agreement element that's missing here. Study tip: Remember that conspiracy is essentially an "agreement crime." When you see conspiracy questions, immediately ask: "Was there a meeting of minds between the parties?" If not, conspiracy fails regardless of how much help was provided.

Question 20

You are a criminal defense attorney. Your client was the getaway driver for a planned bank robbery. Your client and his partner, the robber, specifically agreed that the robber would carry an unloaded, fake gun solely to intimidate the tellers. During the robbery, a security guard intervened. The robber, in a panic, bludgeoned the guard with the heavy fake gun, causing the guard's death. Your client is now charged with murder.

Which of the following legal doctrines will be the most critical for the prosecutor to use in arguing for your client's conviction for murder, and therefore the most critical for you to defend against? Select one.

  1. The felony murder rule, which holds all participants in a felony liable for a resulting death.
  2. Accomplice liability, based on your client aiding and abetting the robbery.
  3. Wharton's Rule, which relates to the number of parties required for a crime.
  4. The Pinkerton doctrine, concerning a conspirator's liability for a coconspirator's crimes. (correct answer)
Explanation: This question tests your understanding of different theories of liability that can hold defendants responsible for crimes committed by their co-participants. When analyzing criminal liability scenarios involving multiple defendants and unplanned consequences, you need to distinguish between various doctrines that extend liability beyond the direct perpetrator. The Pinkerton doctrine (D) is most critical here because it specifically addresses when conspirators can be held liable for crimes committed by co-conspirators that fall outside the original conspiracy's scope. Under Pinkerton, your client could be liable for the murder if the prosecutor can prove: (1) a conspiracy existed, (2) the murder was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, and (3) the murder was reasonably foreseeable. This doctrine is particularly dangerous for your client because even though the death wasn't planned, the prosecutor could argue that violence during an armed robbery (even with a fake gun) was reasonably foreseeable. Option (A) is problematic because the felony murder rule typically requires that deaths occur during the commission of inherently dangerous felonies, and the specific circumstances here (fake gun, no intent to harm) might not fit cleanly. Option (B), accomplice liability, requires that your client intended to aid the specific crime charged (murder), which is difficult to prove given the agreement about the unloaded fake weapon. Option (C), Wharton's Rule, deals with conspiracy charges when crimes require multiple participants by definition—irrelevant to this murder charge. Focus your bar exam preparation on understanding how Pinkerton liability differs from other conspiracy doctrines—it's the broadest and most prosecutor-friendly theory for extending criminal liability to unintended consequences.