Marco L. v. United States

How later courts describe this case

• mere assertion that the defendant was under the influence of heroin was insufficient to establish need for psychiatric assistance
• “It is ... beyond dispute that a jury may find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt from circumstantial evidence”
• "When a party jumps aboard the 'conspiracy train' he assumes responsibility for all conduct whether or not he is conscious of its extent" and therefore a co-conspirator's statements in furtherance of the conspiracy made before the defendant entered the conspiracy are admissible against him
• court would have been justified departing for same two reasons
• habeas appeal from state court conviction