Braverman v. United States
317 U.S. 49 (1942)
Rule of Law:
A single agreement to commit multiple unlawful acts constitutes a single conspiracy and cannot be charged as multiple separate conspiracies, thus only a single penalty may be imposed for the violation.
Facts:
- Petitioners, including Braverman, collaborated with others in an ongoing enterprise.
- The enterprise involved the illicit manufacture, transportation, and distribution of distilled spirits.
- The single, common design of the enterprise involved actions that would violate seven separate provisions of the Internal Revenue laws.
- The evidence at trial established that these various illegal acts all stemmed from one continuous, single agreement among the collaborators.
Procedural Posture:
- Braverman and other petitioners were indicted in federal district court (a court of first instance) on seven counts of conspiracy, each count alleging an agreement to violate a different internal revenue law.
- At trial, the petitioners moved to require the government to proceed on only one count, arguing the evidence showed only a single agreement, but the motion was denied.
- A jury returned a general verdict finding the petitioners 'guilty as charged.'
- The district court imposed a sentence of eight years, reflecting cumulative penalties for multiple conspiracy convictions.
- The petitioners (as appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that a single conspiracy with multiple illegal objectives could be treated as several separate conspiracies.
- The petitioners then successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a single, continuous agreement to commit multiple, distinct criminal acts in violation of several statutes constitute a single punishable conspiracy, or can it be charged as multiple conspiracies, one for each criminal object, allowing for cumulative penalties?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Stone
No. A single agreement to commit multiple unlawful acts constitutes only one conspiracy. The gist of the crime of conspiracy is the agreement or confederation itself, not the substantive offenses that are the objects of the agreement. Therefore, where there is proof of only one agreement, it cannot be treated as multiple conspiracies simply because its objects are diverse and violate several statutes. The court reasoned that since the statute punishes the criminal agreement, one agreement can only result in one violation of the conspiracy statute. Quoting Frohwerk v. United States, the Court affirmed that 'The conspiracy is the crime, and that is one, however diverse its objects.' Consequently, only the single penalty prescribed by the conspiracy statute can be imposed for such a violation.
Analysis:
This case establishes a foundational principle in conspiracy law, clarifying the 'unit of prosecution.' The decision prevents the government from 'stacking' charges by dividing a single criminal agreement into multiple conspiracies based on its various criminal objectives. This holding reinforces that the core harm punished by conspiracy statutes is the criminal agreement itself and the danger of group action, rather than the underlying crimes. It provides a clear limitation on prosecutorial discretion and protects defendants from receiving disproportionately long sentences stemming from a single criminal enterprise.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Braverman v. United States (1942)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"