context: An agreement between the defendants to violate the law is an essential element, which must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 965 F.2d 804, 814
citation_a.parenthetical: holding various actions of state insurance commissioner insufficient evidence of agreement to bribe a public official
citation_a.sentence: United States v. Davis, 965 F.2d 804, 814 (10th Cir.1992) (holding various actions of state insurance commissioner insufficient evidence of agreement to bribe a public official).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 949 F.2d 301, 305-06
citation_b.parenthetical: mere knowledge of or acquiescence in the object of a conspiracy does not make one a coconspirator
citation_b.sentence: See also United States v. Butler, 494 F.2d 1246, 1249 (10th Cir.1974) (mere knowledge of or acquiescence in the object of a conspiracy does not make one a coconspirator). In United States v. Nall, 949 F.2d 301, 305-06 (10th Cir.1991), we concluded that the government’s proof that the defendants, a buyer and seller of real estate, left a meeting together to make a deposit at a bank was insufficient to prove a conspiracy existed to circumvent the cash transaction reporting requirements of 31 U.S.C. §§ 5324(a)(3) and 5313(a).