[NovemberWhiskey]

No, actually.

Let's say that you've been given a key for a locker at Grand Central Station and told there's a gun inside. We agree that I'll use the gun to shoot someone. You give me the key and I go to collect the gun. In fact, the locker is empty.

The gun doesn't even exist and yet there's still a conspiracy to commit murder.

[gamblor956]

No, actually, you need additional steps to achieve conspiracy to commit murder in that hypothetical.

[NovemberWhiskey]

What's the legal basis for that? The "overt steps" are you giving me the key, and me going to the locker.

[ggrrhh_ta]

You could get the gun to prevent the conspiracy from taking place.

[Dylan16807]

Does the overt act not have to further the conspiracy?

[NovemberWhiskey]

Yes: but don't you think that going to collect the weapon furthers the conspiracy to commit murder?

There'd inevitably be argument over whether it met the required standard, which differs by jurisdiction. e.g. did it advance the conspiracy substantially? did it take the conspiracy past the point of no return?

[Dylan16807]

> Yes: but don't you think that going to collect the weapon furthers the conspiracy to commit murder?

Well arguably that didn't happen.

> There'd inevitably be argument over whether it met the required standard, which differs by jurisdiction. e.g. did it advance the conspiracy substantially? did it take the conspiracy past the point of no return?

I'd say that going to a place where you would get equipment is not something that substantially advances the conspiracy, even if there was a gun! It's actually getting the equipment that might do so, depending on what the equipment is. And if you're still collecting necessary equipment, or especially doing a prerequisite to collecting equipment, you're nowhere near the point of no return.