311 U.S. 205, 61 S.Ct. 204, 85 L.Ed. 128
During the period when twenty-two illicit stills operated near Utica, New York, respondents Joseph Falcone and Salvatore Falcone, sugar jobbers, sold sugar to wholesale grocers who resold some to distillers.1 Respondent Alberico, a member of a wholesale grocery firm, sold sugar and five-gallon cans, including sales to an unconvicted distiller named Morreale.2 Respondents Nicholas Nole and John Nole distributed yeast, with wrappers from their products found at several still sites.3
The five respondents were indicted with sixty-three others in the Northern District of New York on charges of conspiring to violate the revenue laws by operating the stills.4 After trial, the jury convicted the respondents along with sixteen still operators.5 The government introduced evidence of increased purchase volumes, specific sales, and isolated contacts such as conversations at the Venezia Restaurant and deliveries of yeast.6
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the convictions of the five respondents.7 It determined that the proof showed at most knowledge that materials would reach distillers but did not establish awareness of any conspiracy.8 The Supreme Court granted certiorari because of a claimed conflict with rulings in other circuits.9
To establish knowledge, the government pointed to items like fifty-five cardboard cartons stenciled with Alberico's firm name found at one distiller's premises and yeast containers at other stills, along with the fact that some respondents had been seen speaking with convicted distillers.
Whether one who sells materials with knowledge that they are intended for use or will be used in the production of illicit distilled spirits may be convicted as a co-conspirator with a distiller who conspired with others to distill the spirits in violation of the revenue laws?10
The gist of the offense of conspiracy as defined by § 37 of the Criminal Code, 18 U. S. C. § 88, is agreement among the conspirators to commit an offense attended by an act of one or more of the conspirators to effect the object of the conspiracy.11 Those having no knowledge of the conspiracy are not conspirators.12 One who without more furnishes supplies to an illicit distiller is not guilty of conspiracy even though his sale may have furthered the object of a conspiracy to which the distiller was a party but of which the supplier had no knowledge.13
No. The evidence established only that respondents knew materials would reach distillers for use in illicit distilling. This was shown by increased sales volumes to grocers who resold to operators and by items such as fifty-five cardboard cartons found at distiller premises. The record contained no proof that respondents knew of the agreement among the indicted parties to operate the twenty-two stills. This was true even though some had isolated conversations with convicted distillers at the Venezia Restaurant or sold directly to Morreale.
Because knowledge of the conspiracy itself is required for liability, the respondents' supply activities did not make them participants in the charged conspiracy.14
One who sells materials with knowledge that they are intended for use or will be used in the production of illicit distilled spirits may not be convicted as a co-conspirator absent proof that the seller knew of the conspiracy.15