[don-o]

The author also overlooks the fact that none of the accused were detained on an accusation of commision of violence. All were detained on an accusation to conspire.

Which seemed reasonable for a few days. Though I still struggle with the "overt act" piece of the conspiracy law. I guess the plan is to get at least one indictment and then back all of them into conspiracy off that overt act?

[Cboldt]

I thought the conspiracy charge was bogus from the start. Even though it can be inferred, there has to be an agreement to commit a crime, coupled with an overt act (which can be a legal act) that furthers the conspiracy. And for gang conspiracy, there also has to be evidence that the conspired crime was for the benefit of the gang.

At any rate, the "overt act" of conspiracy law is in place to prevent convicting people for thought crimes. The "overt act" is a sign that the person involved in the conspiracy has decided to execute the plan to commit a crime. In this case, according to the prosecutor, the overt act is going to Twin Peaks. That part is easy to prove.

The part that is tough to prove, even by inference, is that any individual agreed to participate in or facilitate a rumble.