## Facts

- Patricia A. Grimmett lived with Elmont Kerns, a marijuana dealer, and acted mainly as his recordkeeper by writing coded entries he dictated.
- Kerns was murdered on June 27, 1989; in the following two weeks, investigators repeatedly interviewed Grimmett.
- In 1989, Grimmett gave investigators incriminating information, including that she believed Kerns distributed marijuana, that she kept his drug records, the identities of runners and other associates, and the existence of secret compartments in Kerns’s house where drugs and substantial cash were found.
- Grimmett told an investigator she would cooperate with authorities as much as she could.
- In 1992, federal agents interviewed Grimmett again; she provided additional details, including that she had traveled with Kerns when he collected money from drug customers.
- In November 1994, Grimmett was indicted in the Western District of Missouri for conspiracy to distribute marijuana.
- Grimmett moved to dismiss, claiming she withdrew in 1989 and the five-year limitations period in 18 U.S.C. § 3282 expired before indictment; the district court denied the motion, reasoning she did not fully disclose her involvement until 1992.
- Grimmett pleaded guilty while preserving the statute-of-limitations issue for appeal; after a prior remand and evidentiary hearing on withdrawal, the district court again rejected the limitations defense.

## Issues

1. Whether Grimmett’s 1989 cooperation with investigators constituted an effective withdrawal from the conspiracy sufficient to start the five-year limitations period under 18 U.S.C. § 3282.
2. Whether withdrawal by making a “clean breast” to authorities requires a complete confession of all details of prior participation, or whether substantial incriminating cooperation is enough.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court.
- The court held Grimmett effectively withdrew from the conspiracy in 1989 through affirmative, substantial cooperation with law enforcement.
- The court concluded the district court erred by requiring a complete, exhaustive disclosure as a condition of withdrawal.
- Because withdrawal occurred more than five years before the November 1994 indictment, the prosecution was time-barred under 18 U.S.C. § 3282.

## Legal Principles

- In a continuing conspiracy, the statute of limitations begins to run for a defendant upon withdrawal, not merely upon cessation of activity.
- Withdrawal requires affirmative action, such as (a) reporting to authorities in a manner that communicates abandonment or (b) communicating abandonment in a manner reasonably calculated to reach co-conspirators.
- A “clean breast” to authorities does not require a full accounting of every detail of the defendant’s prior involvement; substantial, incriminating cooperation indicating a genuine break with the conspiracy can suffice.
- Criminal statutes of limitations are interpreted in favor of repose; courts should not extend conspiracy exposure by conditioning withdrawal on exhaustive confessions.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit held that Grimmett’s substantial cooperation with investigators shortly after the conspiracy leader’s death constituted withdrawal in 1989, triggering the limitations period and rendering the 1994 conspiracy indictment untimely under 18 U.S.C. § 3282.


United States v. Grimmett, 236 F.3d 452 (8th Cir. 2001)