## Facts

- Federal prosecutors charged Braverman and others involved in an illicit liquor operation in a seven-count indictment, each count alleging a conspiracy to violate a different internal revenue law.
- The government’s evidence supported a finding that, over a substantial period, the defendants acted in concert in the manufacture, transportation, and distribution of distilled spirits, committing multiple revenue-law violations.
- Defendants moved to require the government to elect a single conspiracy count, arguing the proof showed only one agreement.
- The government argued that one continuing agreement with multiple unlawful objects could be treated as multiple conspiracies, permitting separate punishment on each count.
- The trial court instructed the jury consistent with the government’s theory; the jury returned a general verdict of guilty on all counts.
- The district court imposed cumulative prison terms totaling eight years.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed.
- The Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether multiple conspiracy counts alleging different statutory objects can support cumulative sentences beyond the conspiracy statute’s maximum when the evidence shows only a single agreement.
2. Whether the limitations period for a conspiracy whose object is evasion or defeat of a federal tax is the general three-year period or a tax-specific six-year period.
3. Whether a former-jeopardy claim bars prosecution when the record does not include the earlier indictment alleged to charge the same offense.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed.
- A single agreement to commit multiple unlawful acts constitutes only one conspiracy; multiple counts cannot be used to impose cumulative sentences exceeding the statutory maximum for a single conspiracy.
- For a conspiracy whose object is evasion or defeat of a federal tax, the applicable limitations period is six years under the tax statute, not the general three-year period.
- The Court declined to decide the former-jeopardy claim because the earlier indictment was not in the record.

## Legal Principles

- The unit of prosecution for conspiracy is the agreement; one agreement remains one conspiracy even if it contemplates violations of multiple statutes.
- Multiple conspiracy counts charging different illegal objects may not support stacked punishments absent proof of distinct agreements.
- When a general verdict is supported by evidence of only one conspiratorial agreement, sentencing is capped at the maximum for a single violation of the conspiracy statute.
- A tax-specific six-year statute of limitations applies to conspiracies charged under the general conspiracy statute when the conspiracy’s object is to evade or defeat a federal tax.
- An appellate court will not resolve a former-jeopardy claim where the record lacks the prior charging instrument necessary to assess identity of offenses.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a single conspiratorial agreement with multiple unlawful objectives is punishable as one conspiracy, barring cumulative sentences based solely on multiple statutory objects, and it applied a six-year limitations period to tax-evasion-object conspiracies while leaving an undeveloped former-jeopardy claim unresolved.


Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49 (1942)