Talk:Unindicted co-conspirator

Legal accuracy

Only prosecutors, in the actual indictment itself, can identity, by name or not by name, i.e., unnamed, an unindicted (co)conspirator, not witnesses or defendants. Rodiau (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

They did; according to Bustle there is a reference to "Individual 1" in the charging document/indictment, per the guidance of Department of Justice, United States Attorney's manual section 9-11.130, as recommended for a conspiracy indictment. So the prosecutors are following the rules in the process of going from a charging document to an indictment. Do you think we need this kind of detail in the article? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Other un-named persons include "Executive 1" and "Executive 2", "Corporation 1", etc, as well as a criminal referral, a civil tax case ..., all simultaneously in exchange for a plea deal while reserving the right to retain them as predicate cases for racketeering charges against ... . 02:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, those are defendant statements. Those are not the prosecution's statements and are not part of the prosecution's indictment of Cohen. The prosecutors did not identify or list anyone, named or unnamed, as an unindicted co-conspirator in Cohen's indictment. All there is in the indictment are the defendant's words, not the prosecution's, identifying someone. While defendants can identify - confess - with whom they conspired, only prosecutors can list named and unnamed co-conspirators. The prosecutors did not list any. Rodiau (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that deleting all discussion of Cohen's case is accurate. Only prosecutors, in the actual indictment itself, can identity, by name, or not by name, i.e., unnamed, an unindicted (co)conspirator, not witnesses or defendants. Defendant and witness statements are not part of the defendant's indictment - they're part of the defense and occur post-indictment, i.e., afterwards. The prosecutors did not identify anyone as a co-conspirator, name or unnamed. Since the prosecutors did not do so, by law there are no unnamed, unindicted co-conspirators in Cohen's indictment. Rodiau (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Please provide sources, not your own observations. That I see, sources state he could be an unindicted co-conspirator; if you find secondary sources contradicting that,you can add material based on those sources, but not your own interpretation of the law. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

No where in the Bustle article is anyone identified, or describeed, using the word "co-conspirator". No one is named as an "unindicted" co-conspirator. Peruse carefully. Don't confuse words like implicated with unindicted. Rodiau (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Rodiau, i'm fine with removing all the stuff about trump, as you've done; thanks. However I'm not fine with your additions, which appear to be original research not based on reliable sources Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The opinions made by those sources of what "could be" -your words- are not part of the indictment. The Bustle article is conjecture. It is not the indictment. You are welcome to your opinion, you're not welcome to your own set of facts. Rodiau (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. It's not an original source, i.e., my opinion. It is the same footnote from the attorney's manual. When one peruss the manual, one sees that the prosecutor is the only one who can make those determinations, not witnesses and so on. Rodiau (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 15 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Merged into Conspiracy (criminal)  — Amakuru (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Unindicted co-conspirator → Co-conspirator – This article is unnecessarily narrow. If we remove "unindicted" from the title, then we can more broadly address the status of co-conspirators, whether indicted or not, and treat the unindicted variation as a large subsection of the article. bd2412 T 19:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

But why not merge both into a subsection of conspiracy? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I support that. I fail to see how a co-conspirator differs from a conspirator, "co-" and "con-" are the same prefix, but that's how it is in the (US only?) legal jargon. 89.147.70.233 (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Since conspiracy is quite a short article, it would unbalance the page if merged, so withdrawing my support. 89.147.70.233 (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, as it's its own topic. Legally, an unindicted co-conspirator is different than a co-conspirator. I'm not a lawyer or law student though, so please post a notice of this discussion at the WikiProject Law page to gather further knowledgeable opinions, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Likely oppose, since this seems to be a term of art used in specific contexts. I don't see a scope issue. Dekimasuよ! 09:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Conspiracy (criminal); it's really not related to the general conspiracy article; "unindicted" inherently refers to the criminal variety.

Note that Conspiracy (criminal) is a substantial article, so IP editor's 89.147.70.233 concern about balance would not be applicable.

As an aside, Conspiracy (criminal) is arguably too substantial, and may lend itself to being split out by jurisdiction, i.e., Criminal conspiracy (England and Wales); Criminal conspiracy (Northern Ireland); Criminal conspiracy (United States). But that's a separate topic. TJRC (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• I would agree with a merge of this article to Conspiracy (criminal), since one can only be "unindicted" in a criminal context. bd2412 T 00:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect (to anchor) per User:TJRC. The target article does mention "unindicted co-conspirators" at the top of the U. S. section, but does not link to this article. 89.147.70.233 (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia reputation

I seldom comment on controversial political issues here, but this one may be so mistaken that it could hurt Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia and that just won't do (especially as it has just turned 18 years old, and can legally drink in some places). I'm not a lawyer or law student, and have read the section above pertaining to this situation, but in a Boston Globe opinion piece Alan Dershowitz seems to clearly show] that Donald Trump isn't an unindicted co-conspirator in the Cohen case, because Cohen's pleading wasn't a grand jury matter. Dershowitz says that only grand juries can indict. The Globe reference isn't used on this page, nor should it be if it's accurate - the section should just be removed. A good one-third of this article is now about Donald Trump, but it seems, if Dershowitz is correct (is he?), his name shouldn't even be mentioned. Confused in Colorado, Randy Kryn (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The article referenced reliable, secondary sources reporting on Trump being called an unindicted co-conspirator, i.e. exactly what WP should do: it is not as if WP is calling Trump that itself. The opinion piece saying why he is not probably should be added for balance.

That said, this article is perhaps not the place to put it— it may be better in Trump's biopgraphy article. 89.147.70.233 (talk) 06:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)