Mother of former Katy QB Bronson McClelland arrested

[NHSBulldogFan]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[bullets13]

There's a whole lot to this story that I'll never know, but I sure would like to

[tvc184]

I will say this only for informational purposes and nothing specifically about this case…. since I don’t know anything.

From the article she was arrested for conspiracy. Conspiracy in itself is not a crime. It is conspiracy to commit a particular crime that is an offense. For example Conspiracy to Commit: Burglary or Murder.

Conspiracy is a preparatory crime or a crime of planning. In Texas it is only a conspiracy if the crime planned is a felony but in Mississippi where this is, it could also be a misdemeanor also. 

A conspiracy requires two or more people to plan to commit a crime AND then for at least one person to do an overt act to further that crime.

As a what if scenario…

What if three people got together and decided to rob a bank? Let’s say they discussed the idea between each other and decided on which bank to rob. Is that a crime? No.

During the discussion they mentioned that they need a handgun, a recon of the bank to see if there were any security guards on duty and then to make a decision who was going to do what. Now we are talking specifics details. Has a crime been committed? No.

As part of the planning, one of the three guys says he can get a handgun tomorrow because he knows a guy on the street who is trying to sell one. Is that a crime at that point? No.

The next day that guy meets up and buys the handgun. Has conspiracy been committed? Yes. All three people who planned to rob the bank have now committed the crime of Conspiracy to Commit/Aggravated Robbery. The reason is that a person has now done an overt act to further the crime. Before it was just words. Now that a person has done something to further that crime, conspiracy has been completed. Another example in the same conspiracy would be if one of the guys went into the bank and made a sketch of where the tellers were, where the doors were and if there was a security guard, where he was usually standing. That would be another example of an overt act in order to further the crime.

In this case, as far as I can tell from the article, a couple of guys were accused of committing the kidnapping. The woman and another guy were not charged with the kidnapping but with conspiracy to commit kidnapping. That leads me to believe that the district attorneys thinks he has information that ties the woman to the planning and/or the execution of the kidnapping. Since she did not take a direct part, under Mississippi law, apparently she cannot be charged with the crime itself. They can be charged with conspiracy assuming there is evidence to back up that charge.

This is an interesting case because the claimed victim, apparently was giving some money to help start up a marijuana growing operation. I don’t think that is likely to be in dispute. The issue is that when the people wanted their money back, what happened? I believe the suspects are saying that the guy agreed to give them the money and the trip to the bank was just doing business. The claimed victim stated that he was held in a kidnapping and forced to go to the bank.

Who do you believe? Is there evidence that either one is telling the truth, remembering that you have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed? Basically, is there any evidence other than one side saying yes, this happened and the other side say, no it didn’t happen.

In the article the district attorney says he has an electronic trail proving the crime. That seems to imply that he has emails, text, messages, pinging phones and/or phone call logs. So perhaps this woman may have been involved in the planning like maybe she was able to find out what bank he used, where he might be staying, etc.