◆ SpookStack

The appellants argue the indictment returned June 27, 2006 was invalid because it was returned by a grand jury whose term had expired. As the Government points out, the validity of that indictment is irrelevant here because the appellants were charged and tried pursuant to the superseding indictment returned by a different grand jury on March 21. 2007. The appelants puint to nio infirmity in the relevant indictment. D. MuItiple Conspiracies At trial the appellants asked the court to instruct the jury that proof of multiple separate conspiracies is not proof of one larger conspiracy. The district court denied that request, which the appellants argue was reversible error under United States y. Graham, 83 F.3d 1466, 1472 (D.C.Cir.1996): "To convict, the jury must find appellants guilty of the conspiracy charged in the indictment, not some other, separate conspiracy"; therefore, "if record evidence supports the existence of multiple conspiracies, the district court should ... so instruct [ ] the jury." The appellants argue the evidence at trial supports the existence of "[t]wo independent supply-side conspiracies." The two purportedly separate conspiracies they instance,. however, each comprises the core conspiracy charged-that of Maynard, Jones, and the same co-conspirators, to possess and to distribute cocaine and cocaine base-differing only as to the supplier of the drugs, as reflected in the following illustration: Image 1 (4.03" X 2.24") Available for Offline Print Even if the evidence showed the charged conspiracy to distribute drugs relied upon two different suppliers, and the Government does not concede it did, that does not cleave in two the single conspiracy to distribute the appellants were charged with operating. As the appellants offer no other reason to doubt the district court's conclusion, in rejecting the proposed instruction, that "[t]he defendants here and their coconspirators [were] involved in a single overarching conspiracy," there was no error in the district court's ' refusal to instruct the jury about multiple conspiracies. E. Immunity At trial, the appellants called a number of their coconspirators as witnesses, but the co. conspirators refused to testify, asserting their right, under the Fifth Amendment, not to be compelled to incriminate themselves. The appellants then asked the district court, "in its discretion, [to] adopt [ the ] rationale and ... procedure"' set forth in Carter y. United States, 684 A.2d 331 (1996), where the District of Columbia Court of Appeals addressed a situation in which. 8 TTUOTC 0070S9