According to FindLaw.com, Nevada law permits a single person to be convicted of conspiracy. As counterintuitive as this is, it explains how Elaine Clermont could be charged with conspiracy to kidnap a child even after her co-conspirator Laurinda Drake was acquitted of all charges.

And the reason Elaine Clermont was charged with conspiracy in addition to kidnapping is that additional penalties are available to a sentencing judge. Yes, it’s true: conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime even if the crime is never committed. We all understand why this is necessary. No one wants the cops to hang around a gang of conspirators waiting for them to commit the crime before they arrest them.

But the idea that a woman conspired to commit a crime when the incident occurred only because a child happened to wander away from a school is ludicrous.

The jury that heard this case obviously had no idea that Ms. Drake—who testified in the Clermont trial—had been completely exonerated.

And it’s also clear to me that the reason the state prosecuted Drake first was because they had a better case against her for kidnapping than they did for Clermont. It was Drake who literally picked up the “kid,” put him in her car, and drove him fifteen miles away from the school where she knew the child belonged. The prosecutors expected to be able to put Drake on the stand against Clermont in return for a reduced sentence and thereby gain a conviction of Clermont by extension.

I guess the law should permit a prosecution to use one conspirator against the other. But I don’t understand why the defense can’t use an exonerated conspirator to support their case.

(BTW: This is exactly the sort of case in which a jury should "nullify" a prosecution. That's what juries are for. It's also why every citizen should be willing to serve on a jury.)