Braverman v. United States Wainer v. United States

Decision Date09 November 1942
Docket NumberNos. 43,44,s. 43
Citation87 L.Ed. 23,317 U.S. 49,63 S.Ct. 99
PartiesBRAVERMAN v. UNITED STATES. WAINER v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. James J. Magner, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner braverman.

Mr. John E. Dougherty, of Peoria, Ill., for petitioner Wainer.

Messrs. Francis Biddle, Atty. Gen., and W. Marvin Smith, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Mr. Chief Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The questions for decision are: (1) Whether a conviction upon the several counts of an indictment, each charging conspiracy to violate a different provision of the Internal Revenue laws, where the jury's verdict is supported by evidence of but a single conspiracy, will sustain a sentence of more than two years' imprisonment, the maximum penalty for a single violation of the conspiracy statute, and (2) whether the six-year period of limitation prescribed by § 3748(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code § 3748(a), is applicable to offenses arising under § 37 of the Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C. 88, 18 U.S.C.A. § 88 (the conspiracy statute), where the object of the conspiracy is to evade or defeat the payment of a federal tax.

Petitioners were indicted, with others, on seven counts, each charging a conspiracy to violate a separate and distinct internal revenue law of the United States.1 On the trial there was evidence from which the jury could have found that for a considerable period of time petitioners, with others, collaborated in the illicit manufacture, trans- portation, and distribution of distilled spirits involving the violations of statute mentioned in the several counts of the indictment. At the close of the trial petitioners renewed a motion which they had made at its beginning to require the Government to elect one of the seven counts of the indictment upon which to proceed, contending that the proof could not and did not establish more than one agreement. In response the Government's attorney took the position that the seven counts of the indictment charged as distinct offenses the several illegal objects of one continuing conspiracy, that if the jury found such a conspiracy it might find the defendants guilty of as many offenses as it had illegal objects, and that for each such offense the two-year statutory penalty could be imposed.

The trial judge submitted the case to the jury on that theory. The jury returned a general verdict finding petitioners 'guilty as charged', and the court sentenced each to eight years' imprisonment. On appeal the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, 125 F.2d 283, 286, on the authority of its earlier decisions in Fleisher v. United States, 91 F.2d 404, and Meyers v. United States, 94 F.2d 433. It found that 'From the evidence may be readily deduced a common design of appellants and others, followed by concerted action' to commit the several unlawful acts specified in the several counts of the indictment. It concluded that the fact that the conspiracy was 'a general one to violate all laws repressive of its consumma- tion does not gainsay the separate identity of each of the seven conspiracies'. We granted certiorari, 316 U.S. 653, 62 S.Ct. 1037, 86 L.Ed. 1733, to resolve an asserted conflict of decisions.2 The Government, in its argument here, submitted the case for our decision with the suggestion that the decision below is erroneous.

Both courts below recognized that a single agreement to commit an offense does not become several conspiracies because it continues over a period of time, see United States v. Kissel, 218 U.S. 601, 607, 31 S.Ct. 124, 125, 54 L.Ed. 1168; cf. Ex parte Snow, 120 U.S. 274, 281, 283, 7 S.Ct. 556, 559, 560, 30 L.Ed. 658, and that there may be such a single continuing agreement to commit several offenses. But they thought that in the latter case each contemplated offense renders the agreement punishable as a separate conspiracy.

The question whether a single agreement to commit acts in violation of several penal statutes is to be punished as one or several conspiracies is raised on the present record, not by the construction of the indictment, but by the Government's concession at the trial and here, reflected in the charge to the jury, that only a single agreement to commit the offenses alleged was proven. Where each of the counts of an indictment alleges a conspiracy to violate a different penal statute it may be proper to conclude, in the absence of a bill of exceptions bringing up the evidence, that several conspiracies are charged rather than one, and that the conviction is for each. See Fleisher v. United States, supra; Shultz v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 123 F.2d 729, 730. But it is a different matter to hold, as the court below appears to have done in this case and in Meyers v United States, supra, that even though a single agreement is entered into, the conspirators are guilty of as many offenses as the agreement has criminal objects.

The gist of the crime of conspiracy as defined by the statute is the agreement or confederation of the conspirators to commit one or more unlawful acts where 'one or more of such parties do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy'. The overt act, without proof of which a charge of conspiracy cannot be submitted to the jury, may be that of only a single one of the conspirators and need not be itself a crime. Bannon and Mulkey v. United States, 156 U.S. 464, 468, 469, 15 S.Ct. 467, 469, 39 L.Ed. 494; Joplin Mercantile Co. v. United States, 236 U.S. 531, 535, 536, 35 S.Ct. 291, 292, 293, 59 L.Ed. 705; United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U.S. 78, 86, 35 S.Ct. 682, 684, 59 L.Ed. 1211; Pierce v. United States, 252 U.S. 239, 244, 40 S.Ct. 205, 207, 64 L.Ed. 542. But it is unimportant, for present purposes, whether we regard the overt act as a part of the crime which the statute defines and makes punishable, see Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347, 357 359, 32 S.Ct. 793, 798, 799, 56 L.Ed. 1114, Ann.Cas.1914A, 614, or as something apart from it, either an indispensable mode of corroborating the existence of the conspiracy or a device for affording a locus poenitentiae, see United States v. Britton, 108 U.S. 193, 2 S.Ct. 526, 27 L.Ed. 701; Id., 108 U.S. 199, 204, 205, 2 S.Ct. 531, 534, 27 L.Ed. 698; Dealy v. United States, 152 U.S. 539, 543, 547, 14 S.Ct. 680, 681, 683, 38 L.Ed. 545; Bannon and Mulkey v. United States, supra, 156 U.S. 469, 15 S.Ct. 469, 39 L.Ed. 494; Hyde v. Shine, 199 U.S. 62, 76, 25 S.Ct. 760, 761, 50 L.Ed. 90; Hyde v. United States, supra, 225 U.S. 388, 32 S.Ct. 810, 56 L.Ed. 1114, Ann.Cas.1914A, 614; Joplin Mercantile Co. v. United States, supra.

For when a single agreement to commit one or more substantive crimes is evidenced by an overt act, as the statute requires, the precise nature and extent of the conspiracy must be determined by reference to the agreement which embraces and defines its objects. Whether the object of a single agreement is to commit one or many crimes, it is in either case that agreement which constitutes the conspiracy which the statute punishes. The one agreement cannot be taken to be several agreements and hence several conspiracies because it envisages the violation of several statutes rather than one.

The allegation in a single count of a conspiracy to commit several crimes is not duplicitous, for 'The conspiracy is the crime, and that is one, however diverse its objects'. Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204, 210, 39 S.Ct. 249, 252, 63 L.Ed. 561; Ford v. United States, 273 U.S. 593, 602, 47 S.Ct. 531, 534, 71 L.Ed. 793; United States v. Manton, 2 Cir., 107 F.2d 834, 838. A conspiracy is not the commission of the crime which it contemplates, and neither violates nor 'arises under' the statute whose violation is its object. United States v. Rabinowich, supra, 238 U.S. 87—89, 35 S.Ct. 682, 684, 685, 59 L.Ed. 1211; United States v. McElvain, 272 U.S. 633, 638, 47 S.Ct. 219, 220, 71 L.Ed. 451; see United States v. Hirsch, 100 U.S. 33, 34, 35, 25 L.Ed. 539. Since the single continuing agreement, which is the conspiracy here, thus embraces its criminal objects, it differs from successive acts which violate a single penal statute and from a single act which violates two statutes. See Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
744 cases
  • State v. Padua
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • March 29, 2005
    ...(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Howard, supra, 221 Conn. at 462, 604 A.2d 1294, quoting Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49, 53-54, 63 S.Ct. 99, 87 L.Ed. 23 (1942). Accordingly, the defendants' multiple sentences for two separate conspiracies arising out of a single unlawfu......
  • Com. v. Winter
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • May 29, 1980
    ...occurrences, but they were still "embrace(d)" in the overriding purpose of the continuing combination. Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49, 53-54, 63 S.Ct. 99, 102, 87 L.Ed. 23 (1942). Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 557-559, 68 S.Ct. 248, 256-257, 92 L.Ed. 154 (1947). "Becau......
  • US v. Whitehorn
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • April 11, 1989
    ...from subdividing a single criminal conspiracy into multiple violations of one conspiracy statute. Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49, 52-53, 63 S.Ct. 99, 101, 87 L.Ed. 23 (1942). 165 The bombing of the South African consulate in Manhattan could be next, and after that the Israeli Aircr......
  • Marcusse v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • October 26, 2012
    ...offenses and may even incorporate more than one substantive violation as separate objects of that single conspiracy. Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49, 52-54 (1942); Beckman v. United States, 890 F.2d 416 (6th Cir. 1989). With these principles in mind, the charging of mail fraud and m......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 books & journal articles
  • Specific Environmental Statutes
    • United States
    • Environmental crimes deskbook 2nd edition Part Three
    • June 20, 2014
    ...(S.D. Ohio 1976); see also McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1038-39 (11th Cir. 2000). 737. Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49 (1942); United States v. hompson, 518 F.3d 832, 853 (10th Cir. 2008); United States v. Ndiaye, 434 F.3d 1270, 1294 (11th Cir. 2006); United Sta......
  • TAX VIOLATIONS
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...if the Government does not suffer “property or pecuniary loss by the fraud.”) (alteration in original); cf. Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49, 53–54 (1942) (“The conspiracy is the crime . . . . The single agreement is the prohibited [act].”). 350. See United States v. Gricco, 277 F.3d......
  • United States Law and the Proposed Code of Conduct on the Transfer of Technology
    • United States
    • Antitrust Bulletin No. 23-4, December 1978
    • December 1, 1978
    ...may be limited instances where the practice is justified,even when the scheme involves a patent. United States v.Loew's Inc., supra, 317 U.S. at 49-50. Three such exceptionsto the rule are: First, where the licensor is a new business CODE OF CONDUCT ON TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 849with an uncerta......
  • Antitrust violations.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 46 No. 2, March 2009
    • March 22, 2009
    ...agreement is a trial on part of the passive parent, and the whole cannot be subsequently prosecuted" (citing Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49, 54 (1942))); cf. Albemaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333,343 (1981) (holding that consecutive sentences imposed in drug case for violation of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT