The crime of conspiracy occurs when a set of people agree to break the law at some time in the future.
Assume that two and only two adults of sound mind and mental ability, acting entirely alone, have engaged in some activity which the state alleges is conspiratorial, and so calls for a trial. Both the prosecution and the defence agree that the defendants acted without involvement of any third party (but of course, the defence denies that the act itself was criminal, or disputes certain aspects of the prosecution’s version of events). Since at least two people are required to make a conspiratorial agreement, does a guilty or not guilty verdict for one of the defendants necessarily result in the same verdict for the other? That is, if the first defendant was found not guilty, would this verdict serve as an absolute defence for the second defendant? Or is there some set of circumstances in which one defendant could be found guilty but the other one not guilty?
(I’m sure answers will vary with jurisdiction, so please state yours when replying.)