In the 1945 case Pinkerton et al. v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court upheld that a defendant can be held liable for substantive offenses committed by a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy, even if they did not participate directly in those acts or were unaware of them. The case involved brothers Walter and Daniel Pinkerton who were charged with violating internal revenue laws related to illegal whiskey distillation. While both brothers conspired together initially, Walter was incarcerated during some of the violations carried out by Daniel alone but was still found guilty under what became known as "Pinkerton liability". The court ruled that when parties conspire to commit an offense, each is responsible for every act committed by their partners which follows incidentally from carrying out their common plan.

In the dissenting opinion for Pinkerton v. United States, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision to hold a conspirator liable for crimes committed by co-conspirators in furtherance of their conspiracy was unjust and inconsistent with principles of criminal law. He contended that this ruling could lead to individuals being punished for acts they did not commit or even know about, which contradicts fundamental notions of personal guilt and responsibility. Furthermore, he expressed concern over potential abuse of prosecutorial power as it would be easy to prove someone guilty based on mere association rather than actual participation in a crime. In essence, Justice Murphy believed that each person should only be held accountable for his own actions unless there is clear evidence proving his involvement or consent in others' wrongdoing.