Wheel and Spoke Conspiracies Case

A conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons to commit criminal or unlawful acts, or a combination of two or more persons by concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose, for some purpose by unlawful means. It is essential that there be two or more conspirators; one cannot conspire with himself.

A "wheel and spoke" conspiracy involves one person or entity, the "wheel" sometimes referred to as the hub since all the activity gravitates around this person, this person also maintains different conspiratorial agreements with different people, yet they have nothing to do with each other. In a wheel or circle conspiracy, there is one common person who is the hub and each of the co-conspirator is a different spoke. Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946), is the most cited case illustrating a wheel conspiracy, where Simon Brown (the hub) fraudulently acquired loans from the Federal Housing Authority for thirty-one independent individuals. The Supreme Court decided that although all the defendants engaged in the same type of illegal activity (Lippman, 2010, p. 199), there was no common purpose or overall plan, and the defendants consequently are not liable (Lippman, 2010, p.199). Each loan "was an end in itself, separate from all others, although all were alike in having similar illegal objects, except for Simon Brown, who the common figure, no conspirators were interested in whether any loan except his own went through" (Lippman, 2010, p. 199). The Supreme Court decided that there were thirty-two separate conspiracies involving Brown rather than one.

Chain conspiracies normally involve a criminal enterprise that cannot thrive unless each link successfully performs its part in the arrangement ("Criminal law capsule summary - chapter 22"). Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539 (1947), involves Weiss and Goldsmith, owner of a liquor wholesale agency. They made an agreement with Feigenbaum and Blumenthal to sell whiskey to local tavern owners at a price in violation of the law. The Supreme Court decided that the prosecutor's charge of a single conspiracy was proper, finding that each sales rep "by reasons of [his] knowledge of the plan's general scope, if not its exact limits, sought a common end, to aid in disposing of the whiskey" ("Criminal law capsule summary - chapter 22").

United States v. Bruno, 105 F.2d 921 (2d Cir.), rev'd on other grounds, 308 U.S. 287 (1939), illustrate a single conspiracy where eighty - eight defendants, smuggles, intermediaries, and retailers were indicted of a single conspiracy to import, sell and possess narcotics. Smuggles transport narcotics into New York where they sold them to intermediaries, who distributed them to retailers, in turn sold them to operatives in Texas and Louisiana to distribute them to addicts. The defendants on appeal argued that there were separate conspiracies. (1) One between