## Facts

- Beachner Construction Co., a Kansas highway contractor, bid on Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) projects awarded through competitive bidding.
- Kansas highway contractors participated in a long-running bid-rigging practice in which contractors allocated projects among themselves and submitted coordinated bids.
- The government alleged Beachner joined an ongoing agreement to eliminate competition on KDOT projects, violating § 1 of the Sherman Act through bid coordination and job allocation.
- In a first federal prosecution, Beachner Construction Co. and an officer (Robert Beachner) were indicted for Sherman Act conspiracy tied to certain Kansas highway projects and were acquitted after trial.
- The government later brought a second indictment against Beachner Construction Co. (and another officer, Jerry Beachner) again alleging a Sherman Act § 1 conspiracy, but focusing on different projects and bid lettings.
- Beachner moved to dismiss the second indictment, arguing it reprosecuted the same overall bid-rigging conspiracy already tried to acquittal.

## Issues

1. Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a second Sherman Act conspiracy prosecution when the later indictment targets different projects but arises from the same continuing bid-allocation scheme.
2. Whether the conduct charged in the two indictments constituted one overarching conspiracy (one agreement) or multiple distinct conspiracies (separate agreements).

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the second indictment.
- The court held that, on the record presented, the two indictments charged the same overall, continuing bid-rigging conspiracy.
- Because Beachner had already been placed in jeopardy and acquitted for that conspiracy, the second prosecution was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause.

## Legal Principles

- The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits successive prosecutions for the same offense, including repeated prosecutions for the same conspiracy.
- In assessing whether successive conspiracy indictments charge the same offense, courts examine whether the government is improperly subdividing one continuing agreement into multiple prosecutions, considering overlap in time, participants, statutory violation, and the nature and scope of the alleged scheme.
- For Sherman Act § 1 conspiracies, the offense centers on the unlawful agreement; multiple acts or transactions implementing the agreement (e.g., separate bid lettings) do not necessarily create separate conspiracies.
- When the evidence shows a single, continuous bid-allocation arrangement implemented across projects, the government may not avoid Double Jeopardy by bringing project-by-project indictments against the same defendant for that same agreement.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit concluded that the government’s second Sherman Act bid-rigging indictment against Beachner impermissibly retried the same continuing conspiracy previously adjudicated, so the Double Jeopardy Clause required dismissal.


United States v. Beachner Construction Co., 729 F.2d 1278 (10th Cir. 1984)