a connection of logical relationship rather than immediateness.” United States v. Carmichael, 685 F.2d 903, 910 (4th Cir.1982). In Carmichael, the two defendants were charged together with conspiracy to buy votes in a federal election and with obstruction of justice for separately urging witnesses before a federal grand jury to give false testimony. Id. at 905-06. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that it was proper under Rule 8 to jointly try the defendants because the obstruction charges arose out of their efforts to conceal their vote buying conduct. Id. at 910. Other courts have specifically held that perjury may be part of the same series of acts or transaction “as the underlying conduct which was misrepresented.” United States v. Curry, 977 F.2d 1042, 1050 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>) (citing cases). It is clear that the perjury
holding that defendants charged with conspiracy to grow marijuana could be tried with defendant who attempted to cover up scheme by false testimony before grand jury nearly four years after conspiracy ended holding that defendant charged with conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and possessing marijuana with intent to distribute was not entitled to specific buyerseller instruction even though support for such instruction existed because court gave a complete instruction reciting all the elements of conspiracy holding that the notion of enterprise conspiracy has largely rendered the old distinction between single conspiracy and multiple conspiracy irrelevant to rico conspiracy charges holding that because it is axiomatic that the defendants could have been prosecuted for conspiracy without ever having committed a substantive crime they could be charged with felony conspiracy and misdemeanors holding that once a defendant becomes associated with a conspiracy he is responsible for all of the acts of the conspiracy even those which occurred before or after his association with the conspiracy