Leon Garcia, also known as Cody Garcia, the defendant, was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona of conspiracy to assault with a dangerous weapon and was sentenced to 60 months in prison. The defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. 

REINHARDT, J. 

One evening, a confrontation broke out between rival gangs at a party on the Pasqua Yaqui Indian reservation.

The resultant gunfire injured four young people, including appellant Cody Garcia. Two young men involved in the shooting, Garcia and Noah Humo, were charged with conspiracy to assault three named individuals with dangerous weapons. A jury acquitted Humo but convicted Garcia. Because there is no direct evidence of an agreement to commit the criminal act that was the alleged object of the conspiracy, and because the circumstances of the shootings do not support the existence of an agreement, implicit or explicit, the government relied heavily on the gang affiliation of the participants to show the existence of such an agreement. We hold that gang membership itself cannot establish guilt of a crime, and a general agreement, implicit or explicit, to support one another in gang fights does not provide substantial proof of the specific agreement required for a conviction of conspiracy to commit assault. The defendant’s conviction therefore rests on insufficient evidence, and we reverse.

QUESTIONS 

1. State the two parts of the element of agreement in conspiracy, according to the Court of Appeals. 

2. Summarize the government’s evidence and arguments that supports the conclusion that Garcia was part of an agreement to assault Romero, Valenzuela, and Baumea with dangerous weapons. 

3. Summarize the reasons the Court rejected the government’s arguments and ordered that Garcia should go free. 

4. In your opinion, was there an agreement to assault Romero, Valenzuela, and Baumea with dangerous weapons? Back up your answer with relevant facts and arguments from the case excerpt. 

5. According to the Court, what “fundamental principle of our justice system” would the government’s definition of “agreement” violate? Do you agree? Explain your answer.