But my question to start for Mo, Garrett, Miriam, if you have an answer, can we just talk a little bit about why a conspiracy case like this is really significant in a movement context or just any context? What do charges like this mean for defendants' lives?

So the thing that is attractive to prosecutors about conspiracy charges is that a conspiracy, to prove a conspiracy, you have to demonstrate that two or more people made an agreement to do something that would constitute an unlawful act.

And that after making that agreement, they took steps in an effort to carry out that agreement to do something illegal.

Well, what constitutes an agreement, right? And what constitutes the kind of substantial steps that someone might take in the service of carrying out such an agreement? This is a very broad category of behavior, and it captures a huge amount of conduct that otherwise we might think of as clearly First Amendment protected conduct, like assembly or speech, expressive conduct, right? Well, what a conspiracy charge enables prosecutors to do is to criminalize whole communities of people and to criminalize behaviors that are not only lawful behaviors, but constitutionally protected behaviors.

And when I say criminalize, what I mean is to treat those communities or to treat those behaviors as though they are crimes, whether or not on their own they actually are.

And so by saying, well, this group of people made an agreement to do something illegal, prosecutors are able to capture a very large number of people who have not, in fact, carried out any criminal conduct.

And of course, this is significant in a movement context for the same reason it's significant in any other community where we see the widespread use of conspiracy charges.

behavior.

But my question to start for Mo, Garrett, Miriam, if you have an answer, can we just talk a little bit about why a conspiracy case like this is really significant in a movement context or just any context? What do charges like this mean for defendants' lives?

So the thing that is attractive to prosecutors about conspiracy charges is that a conspiracy, to prove a conspiracy, you have to demonstrate that two or more people made an agreement to do something that would constitute an unlawful act.

And that after making that agreement, they took steps in an effort to carry out that agreement to do something illegal.

Well, what constitutes an agreement, right? And what constitutes the kind of substantial steps that someone might take in the service of carrying out such an agreement? This is a very broad category of behavior, and it captures a huge amount of conduct that otherwise we might think of as clearly First Amendment protected conduct, like assembly or speech, expressive conduct, right? Well, what a conspiracy charge enables prosecutors to do is to criminalize whole communities of people and to criminalize behaviors that are not only lawful behaviors, but constitutionally protected behaviors.

And when I say criminalize, what I mean is to treat those communities or to treat those behaviors as though they are crimes, whether or not on their own they actually are.

And so by saying, well, this group of people made an agreement to do something illegal, prosecutors are able to capture a very large number of people who have not, in fact, carried out any criminal conduct.

And of course, this is significant in a movement context for the same reason it's significant in any other community where we see the widespread use of conspiracy charges.

is observing your behavior.