PER CURIAM: Hughes Aircraft Co.. Inc. (“Hughes, appeals from
PER CURIAM: Hughes Aircraft Co.. Inc. (“Hughes, appeals from
PER CURIAM: Hughes Aircraft Co.. Inc. (“Hughes, appeals from its conviction and sentence for irk to defraud and make false statements to the federal . . Slots contracted with the United States to microelectronic cirCuns known as “hybrids.” which are used as components in weapons defense systems. The contracts required Hughes to perform a series of tests on each hybrid. As the hybrids made their way through the testing process, they were accompanied by paperwork indicating what tests had been per-formed. the results of those tests, and the identity of the operator of the testing equipment. Hughes's former employee. Donald LaRue (“LaRue”), was a supervisor responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the hybrid testing process. LaRue arranged for the paperwork to indicate falsely that all tests had been performed and that each hybrid had passed each test. When LaRue's subordinates called his actions to the attention of LaRue's supervisors, the supervisors did nothing about it. Instead, they responded that LaRue's decisions were his own and were not to be questioned by his subordinates. Hughes and LaRue were charged with …conspiracy to defraud…. LaRue was acquitted…. Hughes was convicted…. Hughes appeals from both its conviction and fate of 53.5 million…. Hughes first argues that it must be acquitted as a matter of law because the same jury that convicted Hughes acquitted its “indispensable coconspirator.' LaRue, of the identical charges on identical evidence…. Inconsistent verdicts can just as easily be the result of jury lenity as a determination of the facts. Thus the acquittal of all conspirators but one does not necessarily indicate that the jury found no agreement to act…. Accordingly, the conviction of one co-conspirator is valid even when all the other co-conspirators are acquitted…. Hughes next argues that it is entitled to a judgment of acquittal because the evidence against it and LaRue was identical. yet one was convicted while the other was acquitted. This argument is predicated on the assumption that LaRue was the sole employee for whose actions Hughes could
be found vicariously guilty and that the evidence against each of the two defendants was necessarily identical. However, some of the evidence of conspiracy was offered against Hughes alone. More-over, as this evidence indicates, the jury could have found Hughes guilty based on the actions or omissions of its supervisors and employees other than LaRue. As Hughes's assumption that the facts against both defendants were identical is erroneous, and no other facts support its argument, we reject this contention. Hughes's third argument is that the plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 371. which states that if `two or more persons conspire … each may be punished, prevents its conviction because it is legally impossible for a party to conspire with itself. Hughes argues that, because it is vicariously liable for each of its employees, a conspiracy between employees would necessitate a finding that Hughes conspired with itself. We reject this creative construction. The statutory language does not exclude criminal liability for a corporation simply because its employees are the actual conspirators. To rule otherwise would effectively insulate all corporations from liability for conspiracies involving only employees acting on behalf of that corporation. We hold that a corporation may be liable under § 371 for conspiracies entered into by its agents and employees…. Hughes argues that a corporation could only violate 18 U.S.C. § 1001 through the efforts of at least two of its employees due to the supervisory and reporting structure of a corporation. Of course. that is not true: a corporation could be liable under § 1001 for false statements to the government by just one of its employees. A conspiracy arises when more than one of its employees agree to defraud the government. Moreover. the consequences of government fraud certainly do not rest on the parties themselves rather than society. Government fraud has an adverse effect on the government treasury. the quality of government projects, and in cases such as this one. the safety of individuals utilizing the government goods purchased. This argument is rejected. Affirmed.
Case Question
1. Why do you think that the jury returned a verdict of not guilty for ?
2. What mistake did Hughes management make that resulted in the company being a party to the conspiracy?
3. Why are corporations liable for the conspiracies of its employees?
"You need a similar assignment done from scratch? Our qualified writers will help you with a guaranteed AI-free & plagiarism-free A+ quality paper, Confidentiality, Timely delivery & Livechat/phone Support.
Discount Code: CIPD30
Click ORDER NOW..
