Levine v. United StatesAnnotate this Case
383 U.S. 265 (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court
Levine v. United States, 383 U.S. 265 (1966)
Levine v. United States
Decided February 28, 1966
383 U.S. 265
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Petitioners were found guilty by a jury on each count of a ten-count indictment, of which the first count was a conspiracy charge and the remaining counts were charges of substantive offenses. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conspiracy convictions, and, with some exceptions, the convictions for the substantive offenses.
Held: in view of the Solicitor General's concessions that an individual cannot be held criminally able for substantive offenses committed before he joined or after he had withdrawn from the conspiracy, and that some of the convictions for substantive offenses here must accordingly be reversed, and, upon consideration of the entire record, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated insofar as it affirms petitioners' convictions for substantive offenses and remanded to reverse the convictions the Solicitor General concedes must be reversed and to determine whether petitioners are entitled to any further relief regarding the convictions for substantive offenses.
Certiorari granted; 342 F. 2d 147, vacated and remanded.
Ten persons were found guilty by a jury on each count of a 10-count indictment. The count predicated on 18
U.S.C. § 371 (1964 ed.) charged all defendants with conspiring to violate § 17 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a) (1964 ed.), and the Mail Fraud Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (1964 ed.); each of the remaining nine counts charged all defendants with substantive offenses of violating these latter statutes. The Court of Appeals affirmed all the conspiracy convictions and, with some exception for petitioner Roberts and two other defendants, that court also affirmed the convictions for the substantive offenses. 342 F.2d 147. Four defendants petitioned for writs of certiorari, and a fifth defendant subsequently moved to be added as a co-petitioner in one of the petitions already filed (No. 234). We grant that motion, and we grant the petitions for writs of certiorari limited to the issue whether petitioners were improperly convicted of substantive offenses committed by members of the conspiracy before petitioners had joined the conspiracy or after they had withdrawn from it. In all other respects, the petitions are denied.
In response to specific questions addressed by this Court, the Solicitor General has made a two-pronged concession: first, he concedes that an individual cannot be held criminally liable for substantive offenses committed by members of the conspiracy before that individual had joined or after he had withdrawn from the conspiracy, and, second, he concedes that, in this case, some of the convictions for the substantive offenses must be reversed because they are inconsistent with this principle.
case to that court with instructions to reverse the convictions the Solicitor General concedes must be reversed, and to determine, in light of the concession, the evidence, the instructions to the jury, and the applicable principles of law, whether, in addition to the relief conceded by the Solicitor General, petitioners are entitled to further relief regarding the convictions for the substantive offenses.
Vacated and remanded.
* Together with No. 125, Roberts v. United States, No. 230, Grene v. United States, and No. 234, Gradsky et al. v. United States, also on petitions for writs of certiorari to the same court.
** Specifically, the Solicitor General concedes that petitioner Levine's convictions on Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, and petitioner Grene's convictions on Counts 1 and 7 must be reversed.
Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.