The document summarizes a court case, US v. Garcia. It describes a shooting that occurred at a party between rival gangs, the Crips and Bloods. Cody Garcia, a member of the Bloods, arrived and exchanged words with the Crips. A shooting broke out and four people were injured, though there was no evidence Garcia fired a weapon. Garcia was charged with conspiracy to assault three individuals. The court of appeals reversed Garcia's conviction, finding the government did not provide sufficient evidence of an agreement or overt act to prove the conspiracy charge. There was no testimony about what led to the shooting or evidence of a prearranged plan. Gang tensions alone do not establish conspiracy.

1. HaroldSowardsII
CJ 322, Tu/Th 9:30
10/8/15
US v. Garcia
151 F.3d 1243 (9th
Cir. 1998)
1. Facts
 There wasa party at a Native Americanterritorycontrolledbythe Cripsgang
 CodyGarcia arriveswithhisuncle (bothBloods) andstarttalkingsmacktothe Crips,
witnessesstate thathe wasissuingachallenge tofight
 FellowBloodsJulioBaltazarandNoahHumoalso insultthe Crips
 Shootingbreaksout
Baltazar wavesaknife
Garcia and Humo are seenshooting
 There isno testimonyregardinghow the shootingstarted
 4 individualsinjured:StacyRomero,Garcia,Gabriel Valenzuela,andGilbertBaumea
 There wasno evidence atthe trial sayingthatGarcia shotthe injured
 Humo getsacquittedof all charges
 In the US DistrictCourt for the Districtof Arizona, CodyGarcia is chargedwith
conspiracyto assaultRomero,Valenzuela,andBaumeawithdangerousweaponsunder
18 USC 371, 113 (a)(3) and 1153 and issentencedto60 months
 Garcia appeals
 Court of Appealsreversedandremandedthe sentence statingthatthere isnoretrial
because he alreadyspentayear inprison andcall forhis immediaterelease
2. Issue
Didthe governmentpresentsufficientevidence todemonstrate bothanovertact and an
agreementtoengage inthe specificcriminal activitychargedinthe indictment?
3. Holdings
No,reversedandremanded
4. Reasoning
The gov. presentednowitnesseswhocanexplainthe eventsprecedingthe shooting,sothere is
nothingtosuggestthe violence begandue toprearrangement.Gangtensionscan’testablisha
conspiracy.The experttestimonysayingthatgangmembershave a“basic agreement”toback
up eachother.Thistestimonyestablishesacharacteristicof a gang,but not a specificobjective.
So itis insufficienttoprovide asa proof of a conspiracy.
UsingMitchell v.Prunty,107 F.3d 1337 theysay that membershipinagangcan’t serve
as proof of intentthatisneededtoestablishaidingorabetting.“Talkingsmack”isfairlytypical
behaviorina situationinwhichindividualswhobelongtorival gangsattendthe same events.At

2. mostit indicatesthatmembersof agang are lookingfortrouble butnota coordinatedeffort
witha specifiedillegal objective inmind.The Crippstoopulledtheirgunsimmediately
suggestingthatreadinessforagunfightrequiresnoprioragreement.
If theyuse the agreementtobackup each otheras evidence toaconspiracyitwould
contrast the principlesof the justice system.So,there canbe noguiltbyassociationinthe
conviction.There wasnoevidence providedortestimonytohintata conspiracyto assaultthe 3
individuals.