Pinkerton v. United States

• 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

• 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.

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?

The imprisoned brother argued that he wasn't liable for anything other than the conspiracy charge.

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.

Affirmed

The Pinkerton rule revolves around crimes reasonably foreseeable & flowing out of the conspiracy.

The Pinkerton doctrine has been rejected by the drafters of the Model Penal Code (MPC).

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.

Rutledge argued that the imprisoned brother wasn't aiding & abetting.