Walter and Daniel (Ds) are brothers. They were indicted for violations of the IRS Code.
The indictment contained ten substantive counts and one conspiracy count.
Jury found Walter guilty on nine of the substantive counts and on the conspiracy count.
Jury found Daniel guilty on six of the substantive counts and on the conspiracy count.
Procedural History:
Trial count found Ds guilty as stated above.
SCOTUS affirmed, Ds guilty.
Issues:
When there is no evidence that one conspirator participated directly in the commission of the substantive offenses on which the conspiracy was founded, can the conspirator still be convicted for committing the substantive offenses?
Holding/Rule:
Even if there is no evidence that one conspirator participated directly in the commission of the substantive offenses on which the conspiracy was founded, the conspirator can still be convicted for committing the substantive offenses.
Reasoning:
This is a continuous conspiracy, and there is no evidence that Daniel took any affirmative action necessary to establish that he withdrew from the conspiracy.
An overt act of one partner may be the act of all without any new agreement specifically direct to that act.
Criminal liability probably would not extend to a conspirator if the act done by one of the conspirators…
Was not done in furtherance of the conspiracy,
Did not fall within the scope of the unlawful project,
Or was merely a part of the ramifications of the plan which could not be reasonably foreseen as a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement.
Dissent:
Daniel was in jail when the acts were completed. This is probably a sufficient affirmative act to break off from the conspiracy.
The foreseeability analysis is for the law of torts, not for criminal law.
Notes:
One effect of the Pinkerton rule is that it potentially makes relatively minor parties in a large conspiracy criminally responsible for many completed offenses over which they had little or no control.
Some criminal procedure notes…
Hearsay is allowed for a statement made by a conspirator while participating in the conspiracy against all conspirators.
Persons charge in a conspiracy are typically tried together rather than separately.
Most states and federal law permit the government to bring a conspiracy prosecution in which either the alleged conspiracy itself was formed or any act in furtherance of that conspiracy allegedly occurred.
A conspiracy does not automatically end simply because law enforcement officers have defeated the object of the conspiracy.
