◆ SpookStack

Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370 39 “class-based or otherwise discriminatory” desire to un- dermine the BPP. These defendants also engaged in an extensive series of communications which could demonstrate to a reasonable person the existence of an agreement—either tacit or express—to act in concert to achieve their shared objective. Plaintiffs need not prove that the individual motives underlying a common, illegal desire to achieve the conspiratorial objective were iden- tical. The essence of a conspiracy is the agreement, and a reasonable jury could find that the actions of these defendants demonstrate that they had agreed at least tacitly to work together to eliminate the BPP. The state defendants argue that they never heard of a FBI counterintelligence program called “COINTELPRO” and thus they cannot be liable as coconspirators with the federal defendants. Similarly, the federal defendants contend that because they never met with any of the raiders—in fact, they had never heard of most of them—they cannot be part of a con- spiracy which includes the raid on the BPP apartment. As we stated earlier, however, each participant in a con- spiracy need not know the “exact limits of the illegal plan or the identity of all participants therein.” Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., supra, 447 F.2d at 875. For example, the fact that Special Agent-in-Charge Johnson never spoke to Carmody (one of the raiders) does not preclude their being coconspirators. Johnson closely supervised his subordinate FBI officials’ ac- tivities vis-a-vis the BPP. These agents, in turn, had their contacts among the state defendants. The com- munications between Jalovec and Mitchell, in particular, were essential to the planning and successful execution of the raid. Without the information the federal defen- dants furnished the state defendants, the state defen- dants could not have acted in furtherance of the purpose which plaintiffs contend the state and federal defen- dants shared—inflicting injury to the BPP. The absence 24 If the evidence were to demonstrate that the federal and state defendants merely agreed to help each other enforce the law and prevent violence by the BPP through lawful means, the agreement. of course, would not have violated plaintiffs’ civil rights.