Challenging Co-Defendant and Agreement Allegations
Conspiracy charges under ARS §13-1003 require proof of agreement and overt act. Armour Legal parses co-defendant statements, communications data, and overt act evidence to contest conspiracy claims.
Our targeted motions and cross-examinations aim to sever your involvement or disprove the existence of any criminal agreement.
We defend state and federal conspiracy counts that punish the agreement and an overt act, even when no underlying crime occurs. Prosecutors often rely on texts, call logs, travel patterns, and proximity; we separate communication from commitment and insist on precise proof of shared criminal objective.
We also fight scope creep—the tendency to assign a client responsibility for acts they never agreed to, knew about, or benefitted from. Severance, limiting instructions, and targeted motion practice keep trials focused on individual conduct, not group narratives.
Conspiracy Liability: Agreements, Overt Acts & Scope
A conspiracy charge punishes the agreement to commit a crime, even if the crime never occurs. The State may argue an agreement from texts, calls, or association, while an “overt act” can be minimal. We emphasize that mere presence or friendship is not conspiracy, and we push back on efforts to treat ordinary communication as criminal intent.
Scope is crucial. The government often paints a broad narrative to tie all participants to every act. We fight to limit the scope—showing that a client neither agreed to, knew of, nor benefitted from separate conduct. Severance, Bruton issues, and careful jury‑instruction work can prevent unfair spillover.
Strategically, we explore cooperation‑neutral negotiations and independent plea paths that decouple a client from others. Where trials proceed, we attack informant credibility and highlight innocent explanations for ambiguous acts.
Arizona’s conspiracy statute (ARS §13-1003) criminalizes agreements to commit any felony, even if the underlying offense never occurs. Armour Legal undermines the prosecution’s theory by dissecting intercepted communications, challenging the admissibility of co-conspirator statements, and highlighting the absence of overt acts.
Through rigorous examination of digital metadata and cross-jurisdictional coordination, we isolate client involvement—arguing that mere association does not equate to criminal intent. When appropriate, we also negotiate separate plea agreements that decouple clients from broader indictments.
We resist prosecutorial overreach by narrowing what the State calls the “agreement.” Armour Legal separates association from participation, shows how ambiguous texts/calls prove little, and challenges the alleged overt acts as non‑criminal or unrelated. We litigate severance and evidentiary limits to prevent spillover from co‑defendants’ conduct, and we attack informant credibility with bias, benefit, and inconsistency analysis.
When appropriate, we negotiate cooperation‑neutral dispositions that don’t require putting clients at risk. If trial is necessary, jurors hear a disciplined story: limited knowledge, limited role, and no agreement to the broader plan. Our motions practice and instruction work aim to ensure the jury only judges the client on their acts—not someone else’s.
Frequently Asked Questions
What must the prosecution prove for a conspiracy conviction?
Can I be convicted of conspiracy without committing the underlying crime?
How do I dispute co-defendant testimonies?
Are informal agreements enough to form conspiracy?
Schedule Your Conspiracy Defense Consultatio