Frequently Asked Questions

Our mission is to provide accessible and compassionate support services to individuals and families in the community, with the goal of promoting mental health and well-being, and hold those responsible.

Although we are new to sharing our experiences, we are not new to this experience we call life.  The Manumit Me team is here to help in any way we can, whether it be telling your story, rising awareness, or taking this fight to congress. 

Yes, we do.  We post other inmates stories and their families are going thru as well, to show we are not alone in this fight.  We cannot post your stories on this website but we do share others situation on our other platforms such as: X formerly Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

Answer: No. Conspiracy is a separate and different offense from actually possessing/distributing a controlled substance.

Answer: Conspiracy charges a person with making an agreement to achieve an unlawful objective. Distribution/possession of a controlled substance is the actual commission of the offense. In both cases, the mens rea must be alleged and proved before a person can be found guilty of criminal conduct.

Answer: Mens rea means that a person must know what they are doing to be held accountable for criminal conduct.

Answer: The elements are (i) distribution/possession of a controlled substance, and (ii) the defendant must know that they are dealing with an illegal substance.

Answer: The elements are (i) that an agreement was made between at least two people to commit an unlawful offense, and (ii) that the defendant knowingly and intentionally joined in that agreement.

Answer: No.

Answer: Common sense would say no. Without knowing that the mixture or substance contains a detectable amount of a controlled substance, there can be no understanding or agreement or common intent to commit an unlawful act. In other words, there can be no unlawful common intent to commit the crime of distribution/possession of a controlled substance without knowing that the mixture in question is illegal.

Answer: Even if it is presumed that a person knows what is on the controlled substance list or knows how to identify a particular controlled substance, it is irrational to presume that a person could or should automatically know that a mixture or substance contains a detectable amount of a controlled substance. A rational-thinking person understands that there is no way for an individual to know whether a mixture contains a controlled substance without dealing with the mixture.

Answer: Yes.

Answer: From in or about January 2009, and continuing through at least April 26, 2011, the defendants did knowingly and intentionally combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with other persons both known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally distribute and possess with intent to distribute mixtures and substances containing a detectable amount of cocaine, a controlled substance, in violation of Title 21 USCS 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(ii). Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Cocaine.

Answer: No.

Answer: Because "agree ... to" refers to performing an act in the future.. Therefore, the applicable adverbs "knowingly" and "intentionally" only modify the verbs "distribute" and "possess." The adverbs cannot modify the direct objects "cocaine" or "controlled substance" because it would make the sentence unintelligible   a person cannot know in advance that a mixture will contain a controlled substance.

Answer: The verb "agree" implies a prior understanding or knowledge of the facts involved. Without this knowledge, the agreement would be meaningless. If it is never stated that a person knew the mixture contained cocaine and the persons are not alleged to have ever dealt with cocaine, then it would not make sense to say they agreed to distribute a mixture containing cocaine. In this case, they would not have the necessary knowledge to agree to distribute the mixture, and the agreement would be based on unknown or unknowable facts.

Answer: It alleges that the common intent of the conspiracy was to distribute/possess a mixture containing cocaine, without alleging that the defendant knew the substance was illegal.

Answer: Because the common intent of the conspiracy must be a crime that Congress has legislated as unlawful. If the intent or purpose of the conspiracy is not unlawful conduct, then no crime has been committed. Agreeing to distribute a controlled substance without knowing that the substance is illegal is not a crime.

Answer: The court instructed the jury: "Finally, the law makes cocaine a controlled or illegal substance. The law does not, however, require the government to prove an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy to convict any of the three defendants of this offense."

Answer: The court instructed the jury that cocaine is illegal. The word "know" is a verb, which is an act that takes place in the mind. The jury was instructed that the government did not need to prove that the defendant committed the act of knowing with regard to the controlled substance. Without knowing that the mixture agreed to be distributed was illegal, there could be no understanding or agreement to commit an unlawful act.