Overt Act Research Paper

Rhett, stating the overt act’s definition in the intro sentence of your discussion board really helped clarify your post and made for a great introduction. I found it very interesting when you mentioned, “This act does not need to be illegal. It just has to guide one or two people towards committing an act.” When doing the research to complete my discussion board I did not realize that the act did not have to be illegal. I also mentioned the Whitefield V. United States case for the case that might not be required for conviction of conspiracy. Cornell University Law School mentions, “An overt act is a statutory requirement, not a constitutional one” (Conspiracy, n.d.). Therefore, the illegal act in Whitfield v. United States was the conspiracy’s
“target offense”. I find it very interesting that in the event of conspiracy to commit money laundering the government does not need an overt act. You mentioned in your post that all the government needs to do is prove that there was a partnership. How would the government prove this? Would probably cause or reasonably doubt factor into this decision? Great job on your post. It was an enjoyable read.