In order for an agreement or conspiracy to be a crime in its own right, the agreement or conspiracy has to be to commit a criminal act.
Being ignorant of conspiracy of others, and you doing nothing illegal (not in on the conspiracy or others, not committing a crime that stands without conspiracy), results in no crime.
At least that's the way it works in (legal) principle. Not saying it doesn't get to a jury. Zimmerman was tried for defending himself. But the sort of case you describe should result in no trial, not even incarceration, and that based on investigation, not arrest on probable cause.
-- WHY are you not attacking the Statute? --
Because I don't have an issue with the statute.
-- But just how is a juror to let a guy off a conspiracy charge, if he is sworn to do whatever he is told to do? --
Hopefully the remarks above, which restates how plain conspiracy works, answers that question.
Now, seriously, I am weary of you. You are welcome for the response, no need to thank me, and I do feel that your expression of gratitude is or would be sincere.
“Because I don’t have an issue with the statute.”
I however do, because sincere laymen cannot interpret it on its face.
Just as tens of thousands of pages of IRS code and regulations cannot be understood by any one living person, including any one person employed by the IRS, nor any legislator who voted on any of the laws which spewed out so many tens of thousands of pages of regulation, much less an individual taxpayer.
I abhor the strangulation of our Republic by legislation the ordinary Patriot cannot grasp at face value. Such as you have to pass it to know what is in it.
I abhor the Executive Branch which uses incomprehensible legislation, in order to produce more tens of thousands of pages of regulations which no one person can grasp.
I abhor judicial opinions which override even the legitimate legislative function to pass laws supposedly in the interests of we free citizens, which in themselves are often incomprehensible.
I DO have a problem with any law that I cannot comprehend on first reading, as a Citizen, and my advanced degrees do nothing but support my contention, that all laws we are subject to, should be understandable and comprehensible by any American citizen with at least 8th grade education. After all, most of our ancestors did not exceed that level of formal education.
Sorry to have replied. I realize that mere civil servants will apply the “full extent of the law” — they are so-to-speak duty-bound to do so. They will apply the full extent of the law, whether they or we understand it.
And why exactly shouldn’t we be able to understand the laws?
“the agreement or conspiracy has to be to commit a criminal act.”
So convince the Jury, that agreeing to ride for any reason or no reason, out of loyalty to the club and its leadership, is not agreement to whatever criminal act the leadership intends, expects, or is willing to engage in. (Such criminal act by the leadership, of course, must be demonstrated.)
You do not have to convince me. I will not be a juror; I also have nullification in my back pocket, were I to be a juror.
The defense has to convince the Jury, and the members of the Jury will most likely not have even tried to interpret the statute themselves.
They will listen to the arguments of the DA and the arguments of the defense. Please put forth the best defense arguments as a Jury of normal citizens would understand.
I am not the problem. I am not saying that the statute itself is not the problem. The application of the statute, as argued by the DA and the defense, has to be understandable by a Jury of ordinary citizens.
Convince them, please, by your arguments.
And if you end up not being able to, maybe you will reassess your acceptance of the statute itself.