## Facts

- Bernard Welch conducted a long-running series of burglaries in the Washington, D.C. area, generating substantial illicit wealth over several years.
- Linda Hamilton lived with Welch and performed extensive administrative and financial tasks connected to the operation, including bookkeeping, maintaining records, tracking stored goods, and facilitating sales and transactions involving valuables.
- The trial court found Hamilton knew the wealth derived from Welch’s burglaries and intentionally supported the ongoing criminal enterprise, even if she did not participate in the break-ins.
- On December 5, 1980, Welch burglarized the Halberstams’ home and killed Dr. Michael Halberstam during the burglary.
- Dr. Halberstam’s widow brought wrongful death and survival claims against Welch and Hamilton, alleging joint responsibility based on concerted-action theories.
- Welch defaulted; after a bench trial, the district court held Hamilton jointly and severally liable and awarded damages exceeding $5.7 million.
- Hamilton appealed, challenging her civil liability for the killing.

## Issues

1. Whether Hamilton was civilly liable for the killing under civil conspiracy based on her knowing participation in, and agreement to further, Welch’s ongoing burglary enterprise.
2. Whether Hamilton was civilly liable under aiding-and-abetting principles by knowingly providing substantial assistance to Welch’s tortious and criminal conduct.
3. Whether the homicide during the burglary was within the scope of the joint enterprise and a reasonably foreseeable consequence attributable to Hamilton.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the judgment against Hamilton.
- The court held the district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous and its legal framework was correct.
- Hamilton was liable both as a coconspirator and as an aider and abettor of Welch’s wrongful conduct.
- Welch’s killing of Dr. Halberstam during the burglary was within the scope of the enterprise and reasonably foreseeable, extending liability to Hamilton despite her absence from the scene.

## Legal Principles

- Civil conspiracy is a concerted-action doctrine: once an agreement to pursue an unlawful objective is shown (including by circumstantial evidence), each participant may be liable for torts committed by others in furtherance of the scheme that are reasonably foreseeable consequences.
- Aiding-and-abetting liability requires (1) knowledge of the primary wrong and (2) substantial assistance to the primary actor; sustained “behind-the-scenes” support can satisfy substantial assistance.
- Foreseeability and scope are evaluated in relation to the nature, duration, and methods of the enterprise; violence may be a foreseeable outgrowth of repeated residential burglaries, making resulting injuries attributable to those who knowingly support the venture.
- On appeal from a bench trial, factual findings—especially about knowledge and intent inferred from conduct—are reviewed for clear error.

## Conclusion

The court held that a person who knowingly and substantially supports an ongoing burglary-and-fencing operation can be jointly liable for a murder committed during a burglary, where the homicide is a foreseeable, within-scope consequence of the enterprise.


Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472 (D.C. Cir. 1983)