If I am understanding the case right, the government is not claiming that the defendant had anything to do personally with the crime. He is being charged based on his past gang membership and the fact that he purportedly benefited from the criminal action of a fellow gang member.
Conspiracy has a very specific legal definition, and this case does not meet that definition. Conspiracy involves providing material assistance to someone in their commission of a crime. In this case, there is no claim that this defendant helped the murderer in the commission of the crime. It is only claimed that the defendant benefited from the commission of the crime and from his membership in the gang. That seems to be an awfully dangerous precedent to me. As others have stated, what happens when the government defines the NRA, the Tea Party, or FR to be a gang? What happens if some unhinged member of one of those organizations commits a crime? Are you okay with being prosecuted because a fellow Freeper kills someone?
BTW, I am not defending this person’s life choices or trying to portray him as an innocent victim here. He probably did commit crimes as a gang member, but that’s irrelevant to this case. He is being charged with a crime for something that should not be criminal. In fact it’s pretty hard to even speak of this person COMMITTING a crime since he’s not actually be charged with taking ANY action. He didn’t actually DO anything regarding the murder that took place. He is being charged solely based on the people with whom he chooses to associate.
OK, granted. I’m not thrilled with the nature of the law either, but my original comment still stands - he sounds like a scumbag who cleaned up nice for the picture in the article. We would be hard pressed comparing this guy’s life choices to those at FR.