Tacit agreement can be a drug conspiracy

Abstract

A tacit or material understanding among the parties to manufacture or distribute drugs establishes the existence of a drug conspiracy, the 6th Circuit Court held in "U.S. v. Copeland; Hartwell." The mutual preparation and distribution of narcotics and other relationships, although informal and irregular, and a series of arrests and convictions constitute a conspiracy.

6th Circuit

A tacit or material understanding among the parties to manufacture or distribute drugs establishes the existence of a drug conspiracy, the 6th Circuit Court held.

The mutual preparation and distribution of narcotics and other relationships, although informal and irregular, and a series of arrests and convictions constitute a conspiracy.

Police alleged Darwin Copeland and Anthony Hartwell were members of an elaborate drug operation in the Flint, Mich., area.

The trial court convicted the men of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and weapons possession.

A witness testified that he had used and sold hundreds of ounces of powder and crack cocaine with Copeland and Hartwell.

Copeland claimed he possessed drugs for personal use and the large sums of cash in his possession resulted from gambling.

Copeland and Hartwell claimed to have no organization or any form of a formal agreement.

The 6th circuit court held that their long relationship, their visits to known drug trafficking areas and Copeland's three drug arrests that took place during the course of the police investigation of the gang contributed to a showing of participation in a conspiracy.

Inf.: U.S. v. Copeland; Hartwell, 01-- 1005/1016, 6th Circ., June 18.