Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Pinkerton v. United States: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
* Both Pinkerton brothers lost & faced the same sentencing. | * Both Pinkerton brothers lost & faced the same sentencing. | ||
* The 5th Circuit affirmed the convictions of the protesting imprisoned brother. | * The 5th Circuit affirmed the convictions of the protesting imprisoned brother. | ||
|issues=Is a defendant (imprisoned brother) who engages in no criminal conduct after entering a conspiracy vicariously liable for substantive offenses committed by a co-conspirator (the free brother) in furtherance of the conspiracy? | |issues=Is a defendant (imprisoned brother) who engages in no criminal conduct after entering a conspiracy <u>vicariously liable</u> for substantive offenses committed by a co-conspirator (the free brother) in furtherance of the conspiracy? | ||
|arguments=The imprisoned brother argued that he wasn't liable for anything other than the [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/conspiracy conspiracy] charge. | |arguments=The imprisoned brother argued that he wasn't liable for anything other than the [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/conspiracy conspiracy] charge. | ||
|holding=Yes; a defendant who enters a conspiracy & doesn't affirmatively withdraw from it is criminally liable for all substantive offenses committed by a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy. | |||
|judgment=Affirmed | |||
|rule=The '''Pinkerton rule''' revolves around crimes <u>reasonably foreseeable</u> & flowing out of the conspiracy. | |||
|comments=[[Wiley Rutledge]] dissented against the majority. In his opinion, the majority was convicting an ignorant & passive member of a conspiracy of the same crimes as the actual participants in serious crimes. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/328/640 | |link=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/328/640 |
Revision as of 22:53, January 22, 2024
Pinkerton v. United States | |
Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
---|---|
Citation | 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 |
Date decided | June 10, 1946 |
Appealed from | 5th Circuit |
Facts
- Pinkerton & his brother lived on a farm in rural Alabama
- The 2 brothers conspired to buy whiskey in a wet county in the state & sell it illegally in a dry county
- The brothers also conspired to evade paying excise taxes related to their illegal sales
- Suddenly, 1 brother was imprisoned for un-related crimes
Procedural History
- A federal grand jury charged both brothers (free & imprisoned) of violating tax laws, conspiracy, and other offenses.
- It was shown that both brothers had conspired but only the free 1 (not imprisoned) was guilty of substantive offenses.
- The jury convicted both brothers of conspiracy & substantive offenses.
- The protests of the imprisoned brother who hadn't carry out any offenses were ignored by the jury.
- Both Pinkerton brothers lost & faced the same sentencing.
- The 5th Circuit affirmed the convictions of the protesting imprisoned brother.
Issues
Is a defendant (imprisoned brother) who engages in no criminal conduct after entering a conspiracy vicariously liable for substantive offenses committed by a co-conspirator (the free brother) in furtherance of the conspiracy?
Arguments
The imprisoned brother argued that he wasn't liable for anything other than the conspiracy charge.
Holding
Yes; a defendant who enters a conspiracy & doesn't affirmatively withdraw from it is criminally liable for all substantive offenses committed by a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Judgment
Affirmed
Rule
The Pinkerton rule revolves around crimes reasonably foreseeable & flowing out of the conspiracy.
Comments
Wiley Rutledge dissented against the majority. In his opinion, the majority was convicting an ignorant & passive member of a conspiracy of the same crimes as the actual participants in serious crimes.