## Facts

- Calvin Smith was prosecuted as part of a large Washington, D.C. drug organization for a long-running narcotics and RICO conspiracy involving multiple drugs and violence.
- A federal indictment charged Smith with, among other offenses, drug-conspiracy (21 U.S.C. § 846) and RICO-conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)) counts.
- Smith moved to dismiss the conspiracy counts as time-barred under the five-year federal statute of limitations (18 U.S.C. § 3282), asserting he had withdrawn because he spent the final six years of the charged conspiracy period imprisoned on an unrelated offense.
- The district court denied the motion and instructed the jury that the government had to prove the conspiracies existed, Smith joined them, and the conspiracies continued into the limitations period.
- The jury was also instructed that, after the government proved membership, Smith had to prove withdrawal outside the limitations period by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Smith was convicted on the conspiracy counts, and the court of appeals affirmed the allocation of the withdrawal burden to the defendant.

## Issues

1. Whether due process or federal conspiracy statutes require the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not withdraw within the statute-of-limitations period once the defendant produces some evidence of withdrawal.
2. Whether withdrawal from a conspiracy is an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove, including when asserted to support a statute-of-limitations defense.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous judgment.
- The Court held that withdrawal from a conspiracy is an affirmative defense that the defendant bears the burden to prove.
- Assigning the burden of proving withdrawal to the defendant does not violate the Due Process Clause.
- Neither 21 U.S.C. § 846 nor 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) assigns the withdrawal burden to the government; Congress’s silence preserves the common-law allocation placing the burden on the defendant.
- For limitations purposes, the government must prove the conspiracy continued into the limitations period, but it need not disprove withdrawal beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant’s participation in an ongoing conspiracy is presumed to continue unless and until the defendant withdraws.
- Withdrawal does not negate an element of drug-conspiracy or RICO-conspiracy offenses; it presupposes commission of the conspiracy and instead limits continuing liability.
- Unless an asserted defense negates an element of the offense, due process does not require the prosecution to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Withdrawal, including when used to support a statute-of-limitations defense, is an affirmative defense the defendant must establish (commonly by a preponderance of the evidence).
- When withdrawal is raised in connection with limitations, the prosecution’s burden is to show the conspiracy persisted into the limitations period; the defendant must show withdrawal occurred earlier.

## Conclusion

The Court held that conspiracy withdrawal is an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove, and neither due process nor the relevant conspiracy statutes require the government to disprove withdrawal beyond a reasonable doubt to defeat a statute-of-limitations challenge.


Smith v. United States, 568 U.S. 106 (2013)