Chapter 4 Discussion Question Most criminal conspiracy statutes in both state and federal law require both an agreement by two or more parties to commit a criminal act and
an overt by one of them in furtherance of the conspiracy. However, the federal drug conspiracy statute described on page 86 in the textbook
does away with the "overt act" requirement and requires the government to prove only that the defendant agreed with another person or
persons to manufacture, sell, or deliver drugs.
Do you think we're setting a dangerous precedent in requiring only proof of an agreement? Could an informant, trying to get favorable
treatment for himself or herself, lie to investigators and prosecutors claiming to be part of an agreement? Could an informant trying to get favorable treatment for himself or herself lie to investigators and prosecutors claiming to be a part of conspiracy with innocent third parties?