## Facts

- A party occurred in territory associated with the Crips; attendees included Crips members and some Bloods members.
- Leon Garcia, identified as a Bloods member, arrived in a truck, displayed a red bandanna, and announced his gang affiliation.
- Witnesses testified Garcia insulted Crips members and acted as if he were seeking a confrontation.
- Other Bloods members present, including Julio Baltazar and Noah Humo, also exchanged insults and engaged in antagonistic behavior toward Crips members.
- A fight broke out between the rival gangs; gunfire erupted and four people, including Garcia, were shot and injured.
- The government presented no evidence that Garcia possessed or fired a gun.
- The prosecution relied heavily on expert testimony describing gang culture and an asserted implicit understanding that gang members support each other in fights.
- The charged conspiracy alleged an agreement to assault three specific individuals with dangerous weapons.
- Garcia was convicted of conspiracy in the District of Arizona; co-defendant Humo was acquitted on the same conspiracy charge.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence of gang membership, hostile conduct at a gang-rivalry confrontation, and expert testimony about a general gang practice of mutual support is sufficient to prove the specific agreement required for a federal conspiracy to assault with a dangerous weapon.
2. Whether the trial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, permitted a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Garcia knowingly joined the charged conspiracy to assault three named individuals with dangerous weapons.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed Garcia’s conspiracy conviction.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish an agreement—explicit or implicit—to commit the specific charged assaults with dangerous weapons.
- The court rejected the government’s position that an alleged general gang understanding to back fellow members in fights could substitute for proof of the charged conspiratorial agreement.
- The court concluded that expert testimony about general gang norms could not supply the missing proof of a concrete agreement to commit the particular unlawful act alleged.

## Legal Principles

- A conspiracy conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of an agreement between two or more persons to commit a specific unlawful act and the defendant’s knowing, intentional participation in that agreement.
- Membership in an organization, without evidence of a specific unlawful agreement, is insufficient to establish conspiracy liability.
- A generalized understanding among gang members to support one another in conflicts does not constitute substantial proof of the specific agreement required for conspiracy to commit assault with dangerous weapons.
- Expert testimony on group culture may provide context but cannot replace evidence that the defendant agreed to commit the charged crime.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit reversed because the government proved, at most, gang affiliation and antagonistic behavior amid a chaotic fight, not that Garcia knowingly entered a specific agreement to assault the three named victims with dangerous weapons.


United States v. Garcia, 151 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir. 1998)