Gebardi v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1932 · Criminal Law
287 U.S. 112 (1932)
Updated
Criminal Lawconspiracylegislative exemptionMann Actlegislative policymere consentacquiescencetransportation for immoral purpose

Facts

A man and a woman, not then husband and wife, were indicted for conspiring together to transport the woman across state lines so they could engage in sexual intercourse. The evidence showed that they engaged in illicit sexual relations during the journeys, that the man purchased railway tickets for both of them for at least one trip, and that the woman agreed in advance to go and voluntarily went for the immoral purpose alleged. There was no evidence that any unnamed third person had joined the conspiracy. The proof showed no more as to the woman than willing participation and consent to her own transportation.

Issue

Whether a woman who merely consents to and voluntarily undertakes interstate transportation for an immoral purpose may be convicted of conspiracy with the transporting man to violate the Mann Act, even though her consent alone does not violate the Act. Also, whether the evidence supported conspiracy convictions where no other conspirator was proved.

Rule

Where a substantive statute contemplates a participant's acquiescence as an inseparable incident of the offense but does not punish that participant for mere consent, that same participation is not, without more, automatically punishable as conspiracy under the general conspiracy statute. Under the Mann Act, the transported woman's mere agreement to go and voluntary participation are not enough; to fall within the Act she must at least aid or assist someone else in transporting or procuring transportation for herself, and that aid must be more active than mere agreement.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In St. Louis, Nolan Pierce bought bus tickets for himself and Tessa Moran to travel to Memphis so they could spend the weekend there engaging in an unlawful sexual affair. Tessa agreed beforehand, boarded voluntarily, and did nothing to arrange or finance the trip.

If federal prosecutors charge both Nolan and Tessa with conspiracy to violate the transportation statute, what is the strongest argument for Tessa's acquittal?

Explanation. The majority held that where the substantive statute contemplates the woman's acquiescence but does not punish her mere consent, that same participation cannot, without more, be punished as conspiracy. Mere advance agreement and voluntary travel are not enough. The Court rejected any broad rule that one incapable of the substantive offense can never conspire, and it did not rely on marital status.