Pinkerton v.
Supreme
Court of the
328
Dressler,
pp. 768-769
Facts: The Pinkerton brothers were
convicted of tax crimes. All the
offenses were based on a single conspiracy.
Issue: Can we convict Daniel based
on the conspiracy even though he was in jail at the time the crimes actually
occurred?
Rule: NEW RULE! In the case of a “continuous conspiracy”, “an
overt act of one partner may be the act of all without any new agreement
specifically directed to that act” unless a conspirator takes some “affirmative
action” to withdraw from the conspiracy.
Analysis: The majority finds that
when you have a conspiracy, it’s “all for one and one for all” unless someone
affirmatively pulls out of the conspiracy.
Even if they didn’t physically participate in the act for which they’re
charged, they can be found at fault just for being in the conspiracy.
Rutledge
believes this goes too far. Since Walter
was the only one who committed the actual crimes, and there was no evidence to
establish that Daniel helped in any way, finding Daniel at fault imposes a very
broad form of conspiratorial liability that this Justice is worried about.
Conclusion: Daniel’s conviction is
confirmed.
Notes
and Questions
1. Okay!
2. A, I think is guilty of
solicitation, and then I guess robbery and car stealing as an accomplice. B is only guilty of robbery, as is C. D is probably guilty of car stealing and he
would be the accomplice to the two robberies of B and C. However, under Pinkerton, I think everybody would be guilty of everything:
conspiracy, one count each, robbery, two counts each, then also aiding and
abetting robbery, two counts each, maybe solicitation, one count each, and car
stealing, one count each. Maybe they’d
also “inherit” A’s aiding and abetting robbery (two counts each) and aiding and
abetting car stealing (one count each).
That’s a heck of a lot of stuff!