Pinkerton v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1946 · Criminal Law

328 U.S. 640 (1946)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawconspiracy liabilityconspiracysubstantive offensevicarious liabilityovert actwithdrawalin furtherance

Facts

Walter and Daniel Pinkerton, brothers living near each other, were indicted on ten substantive counts and one conspiracy count for violations of the Internal Revenue Code. A single conspiracy was charged and proved, and some overt acts alleged in the conspiracy count were the same acts charged in the substantive counts; each substantive offense found was committed pursuant to the conspiracy. Walter was found guilty on nine substantive counts and the conspiracy count, while Daniel was found guilty on six substantive counts and the conspiracy count. There was no evidence that Daniel directly participated in the substantive offenses on which his conviction was sustained, but there was evidence that Walter committed them in furtherance of the unlawful agreement between the brothers.

Issue

Whether substantive offenses committed pursuant to a conspiracy merge into the conspiracy so that only one conspiracy punishment may be imposed, and whether a conspirator may be held liable for substantive offenses committed by a coconspirator in furtherance of a continuing conspiracy absent proof of direct participation in those substantive offenses.

Rule

Conspiracy and the completed substantive offense are separate and distinct crimes, and Congress may punish each separately. So long as a conspirator remains a member of a continuing conspiracy and has not affirmatively withdrawn, he is liable for substantive offenses committed by a coconspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy, within the scope of the unlawful project, and as a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement; but a different case arises if the act was not in furtherance of the conspiracy, outside its scope, or not reasonably foreseeable as a necessary or natural consequence of the 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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Nora Kim and Eli Torres agreed to operate an illegal fuel-tax evasion scheme for several months. While the scheme was ongoing, Eli alone filed false shipping records that were exactly the kind of acts the plan contemplated, and Nora had done nothing to withdraw from the agreement.

Can Nora be convicted of the substantive false-records offense even if the government cannot prove she personally filed or saw the records?

Explanation. The majority held that a conspirator may be held liable for a substantive offense committed by a coconspirator when the conspiracy is continuing, the defendant has not affirmatively withdrawn, and the act was done in furtherance of the unlawful project. Direct participation in the particular substantive act is unnecessary when the act falls within the scope of the conspiracy and executes the agreed scheme.