Smith v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 714

Smith was indicted in DC for running and participating in a long‑running drug distribution conspiracy (158 counts) involving cocaine, crack, heroin, and marijuana; conspiracy counts under 21 U.S.C. §846 and 18 U.S.C. §1962(d) were charged with post‑offense conduct within a five‑year limitations window.
The district court instructed that, once membership and conspiratorial continuation were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, Smith could be convicted of conspiracy even if the conspiracies persisted within the limitations period.
Smith moved to dismiss the conspiracy counts as barred by 5‑year §3282 limitations; the court denied, and at trial the jury was instructed on withdrawal as an affirmative defense.
During deliberations the jury asked how to handle withdrawal outside the limitations period; the court instructed withdrawal as an affirmative defense with the rule that the defendant bears the burden to prove withdrawal by a preponderance of the evidence.
Smith was convicted on the conspiracy counts; the DC Circuit affirmed, recognizing circuit split on burden of proof for withdrawal.
The Supreme Court held that a defendant bears the burden of proving withdrawal as an affirmative defense, and that withdrawal beyond the limitations period provides a complete defense but does not require the Government to prove nonwithdrawal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Who bears the burden to prove withdrawal from a conspiracy?	Smith contends withdrawal must be proven by the Government.	Smith argues withdrawal is an affirmative defense that the Government must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt.	Burden on defendant to prove withdrawal.
Does withdrawal affect the statute‑of‑limitations defense or negate an element of conspiracy?	Withdrawal beyond the period provides a complete defense.	Withdrawal does not negate an element; conspiracy remains a continuing offense.	Withdrawal is an affirmative defense; does not negate elements, but can bar prosecution when time barred.
Does Congress’s silence on withdrawal burden preserve common‑law rule?	N/A	Congress intended default rule that affirmative defenses are the defendant's burden.	Congress preserved common‑law rule; burden rests with defendant.

Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 ((2006)) (affirmative defenses generally borne by defendant unless they negate an element)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 ((1970)) (beyond a reasonable doubt required for crimes and elements)
Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 ((1977)) (constitutional rule about burden when defense does not negate an element)
Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 ((1987)) (common-law rule; affirmative defenses are defendant’s to prove)
Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347 ((1912)) (withdrawal requires affirmative action to disavow the conspiracy)
United States v. Kissel, 218 U.S. 601 ((1910)) (conspiracy is a continuing offense; liability extends through ongoing conspiracy)
Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 ((1957)) (government must prove time of conspiracy when statute of limitations defense is raised)
Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 ((1970)) (statute‑of‑limitations considerations and offense timing)
United States v. Hirsch, 100 U.S. 33 ((1879)) (conspiracy requires joint agreement and member participation)