Pinkerton v. United States
328 U.S. 640 (1946)
Rule of Law:
A conspirator is criminally liable for the substantive offenses committed by a co-conspirator, so long as those offenses were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, fell within the scope of the unlawful project, and were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the unlawful agreement.
Facts:
- Walter and Daniel Pinkerton were brothers who lived near each other on Daniel's farm.
- The two brothers entered into a conspiracy to violate the Internal Revenue Code through illicit distilling and selling of whiskey.
- Walter Pinkerton committed numerous substantive offenses, such as selling illicit whiskey and avoiding taxes, as part of this conspiracy.
- There was no evidence that Daniel Pinkerton directly participated in the commission of the specific substantive offenses for which he was convicted.
- Some of the substantive offenses committed by Walter occurred while Daniel was in a federal penitentiary for other crimes.
- Daniel never took any affirmative action to withdraw from the conspiracy with his brother Walter.
Procedural Posture:
- Walter and Daniel Pinkerton were indicted in federal district court (court of first instance) on ten substantive counts and one conspiracy count for violating the Internal Revenue Code.
- Following a trial, a jury found Walter guilty on nine substantive counts and the conspiracy count, and Daniel guilty on six substantive counts and the conspiracy count.
- The Pinkertons appealed their convictions to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments of conviction.
- The Pinkertons then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which the Court granted.
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 party to a criminal conspiracy become liable for the substantive offenses committed by a co-conspirator in furtherance of that conspiracy, even if the party did not directly participate in the substantive offenses?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. A party to a criminal conspiracy is liable for the substantive offenses committed by a co-conspirator in furtherance of that conspiracy. So long as a partnership in crime continues, the partners act for each other in carrying it forward. The criminal intent to do the act is established by the formation of the conspiracy, and the overt act of one partner in crime is attributable to all. This vicarious liability holds unless the substantive offense was not done in furtherance of the conspiracy, did not fall within the scope of the unlawful project, or was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the agreement. The Court reasoned that since an overt act by one conspirator is attributable to all for purposes of the conspiracy charge, other acts in furtherance of the conspiracy should also be attributable to all for the purpose of holding them responsible for the substantive offense.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Rutledge
No. A party to a criminal conspiracy should not be held liable for substantive offenses committed by a co-conspirator without evidence of direct participation, aiding, or abetting. The majority's ruling improperly expands vicarious liability into the criminal sphere, essentially convicting one person for another's crime or punishing them twice for the same offense (once for the agreement and again for the act). Congress created separate definitions for conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and the substantive crime itself, and this decision blurs those critical distinctions. The dissent argues that guilt should remain personal, not vicarious, and the majority's rule creates a dangerous precedent by extending civil partnership liability concepts to serious criminal offenses.
Analysis:
This case establishes the doctrine of vicarious liability for co-conspirators, famously known as the 'Pinkerton Rule.' It significantly expands the scope of criminal liability by allowing a conviction for a substantive crime without proof of direct participation, aiding, or abetting, based solely on membership in a conspiracy. The decision provides prosecutors with a powerful tool, as they can hold all members of a criminal enterprise accountable for the acts of a few. However, it also raises concerns about due process and the principle of personal guilt, as it punishes individuals for the foreseeable actions of others rather than their own direct conduct.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Pinkerton v. United States (1946)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"