State V. Lauria.
People v. LauriaPreview the document, 251 Cal. App. 2d 471, 59 Cal. Rptr. 628 (1967):[Target [Target Response Length: 250–300 words]:Lauria knew that the three prostitutes used his service to arrange meetings with their clients and was charged with conspiracy to promote prostitution accordingly. The court reversed his conviction. Do you agree with the outcome of this case? Why or why not? What would the potential consequences be if nothing more than mere knowledge that the supplying of lawful goods or services somehow contributed to an illegal venture resulted in conspiratorial liability for the supplier? [Target Response Length: 500–750 words]: In Direct Sales Co. v. United States,[i] discussed in the Lauria case, the conviction of a wholesale drug company for conspiracy to violate the narcotic laws by selling large quantities of drugs to a physician who was supplying addicts was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Lauria court distinguished Direct Sales case from United States v. Falcone,[ii] in which the sellers of large quantities of sugar, yeast, and cans were absolved from participation in a moonshining conspiracy. What do you see as the critical distinctions between these two cases that explains the different outcomes in the two cases? Suppose Mr. Lauria provided answering services to a marijuana dealer with the knowledge that his service was taking messages for such a drug dealer. Given your reading of the Lauria case, and its summary of Direct Sales and Falcone, what would you predict the outcome of such a case to be? Why? Would your response change if the dealer were selling crack cocaine? Why or why not? [i] Direct Sales, 319 U.S. 703 (1943). [ii] Falcone, 311 U.S. 205 (1940). From: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Louis LAURIA et al., Defendants and Respondents. 251 Cal. App. 2d 471, 59 Cal. Rptr. 628 (1967).