This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The United States argues that conspiracy is an inchoate offense defined as an agreement to commit an unlawful act.
According to United States, the United States alleges that the respondents conspired to distribute and deliver marijuana and cocaine.
Background and question before the Court
According to United States, the case centers on the definition of conspiracy as an agreement to commit an unlawful act.
Justice O'Connor asked whether an act in furtherance of the conspiracy is required.
Justice O'Connor also asked when a conspiracy terminates.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens questioned the difference between an attempt and a conspiracy, noting that an attempt requires a dangerous probability of success while a conspiracy does not.
What each side argues
United States (Petitioner)
According to United States, conspiracy is an inchoate offense defined as an agreement to commit an unlawful act.
According to United States, the respondents conspired to distribute and deliver marijuana and cocaine.
Francisco Jimenez Recio and Adrina Lopez‑Mesa (Respondents)
According to Mr. Shurtliff (Respondents), according to Mr. Shurtliff (Respondents), respondents state they are not invited to argue that the case below was decided on the sufficiency of the evidence, though they do not abandon that argument.
What happened at oral argument
Justice O'Connor asked: “And taken some act in furtherance of it?”
Justice O'Connor asked: “When does the conspiracy terminate, in your view?”
Justice Stevens asked about the difference between an attempt and a conspiracy, noting the differing requirements for probability of success.
Justice Breyer asked: “Is that the argument?”
Justice Stevens asked: “May I ask? Are the instructions to the jury in the papers before us?”
Mr. Dreeben explained that a co‑conspirator’s statement is admissible only if made during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
The case was submitted.
- [1] 66fffcf3848517d7f765-r1-6158348c51376ab7.pdf, p. 5
- [2] 66fffcf3848517d7f765-r1-6158348c51376ab7.pdf, p. 5
- [3] 66fffcf3848517d7f765-r1-6158348c51376ab7.pdf, p. 9
- [4] 66fffcf3848517d7f765-r1-6158348c51376ab7.pdf, p. 36
- [5] 66fffcf3848517d7f765-r1-6158348c51376ab7.pdf, p. 42
- [6] 66fffcf3848517d7f765-r1-6158348c51376ab7.pdf, p. 20
- [7] 66fffcf3848517d7f765-r1-6158348c51376ab7.pdf, p. 52
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 66fffcf3848517d7f765-r1-6158348c51376ab7.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.