## Facts

- Federal law (the National Prohibition Act) made selling intoxicating liquor illegal.
- In the village of Mullan, Idaho, city officials and city police officers arranged for liquor sellers to pay monthly “license” charges and other money contributions in exchange for being left alone to continue illegal liquor sales.
- The record supported that Mullan’s city officials and liquor sellers had an agreement: payment would buy noninterference and continued operation.
- R. E. Weniger was the elected sheriff of Shoshone County, Idaho; Charles Bloom was his deputy and lived in Mullan.
- Federal agents came to the area to investigate the local liquor activity and the alleged arrangement between the city officials and liquor sellers.
- Weniger and Bloom declined to assist the federal agents when asked to help with investigation or enforcement activity.
- Evidence showed Bloom sometimes drank liquor at one of the illegal establishments, and Weniger had been present where people were drinking liquor at an unlawful location.
- There was evidence Bloom warned at least one liquor seller about possible federal enforcement activity.
- Two witnesses testified that Weniger gave them a hard time about being “stool pigeons” for cooperating with federal agents.
- Weniger, Bloom, Mullan city officials, city police officers, and liquor sellers were indicted for conspiracy to violate federal prohibition law.
- At trial, there was no evidence that Weniger or Bloom participated in collecting the payments, agreed to the fee system, shared in any proceeds, attended planning meetings, or otherwise joined the city officials’ protection arrangement.
- The government also introduced broad testimony about vice conditions in Mullan (including gambling and other misconduct) that was not tied to an agreement by Weniger or Bloom to violate the prohibition laws.
- Weniger and Bloom were convicted of conspiracy in federal district court and appealed; the other convicted defendants did not appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Weniger and Bloom knowingly and intentionally joined the conspiracy between Mullan’s city officials and liquor sellers to violate the National Prohibition Act.
2. Whether a county sheriff’s and deputy’s failure to enforce prohibition law, coupled with drinking, warnings, and hostility toward federal agents or informants, can establish membership in a charged conspiracy without proof of an agreement.
3. Whether admitting wide-ranging evidence about unrelated vice conditions unfairly prejudiced Weniger and Bloom on the conspiracy charge.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed Weniger’s and Bloom’s convictions.
- The court concluded the evidence did not show that either defendant entered into the agreement that existed between Mullan’s city officials and liquor sellers.
- The court explained that nonenforcement, association with liquor activity, and unfriendly conduct toward federal enforcement efforts were not enough, without proof of a knowing agreement.
- The court also noted error in admitting evidence of general vice conditions that was not connected to proving an agreement by Weniger or Bloom.

## Legal Principles

- A conspiracy conviction requires proof that the defendant knowingly joined an agreement to accomplish an unlawful objective.
- Mere failure to enforce the law, passive tolerance of violations, or association with wrongdoers does not by itself prove membership in a specific conspiracy.
- Evidence that a defendant drank liquor, was present where liquor was consumed, or expressed hostility to federal agents may suggest sympathy with violators, but it does not substitute for proof of an agreement.
- In a conspiracy trial, evidence of unrelated misconduct or general bad conditions may be excluded where it adds little to proving the charged agreement and risks unfair prejudice.

## Conclusion

Weniger v. United States held that although Mullan’s city officials and liquor sellers engaged in a pay-for-protection arrangement to continue illegal liquor sales, the government did not prove that the county sheriff and his deputy joined that agreement. The evidence against Weniger and Bloom showed nonenforcement, drinking-related conduct, a warning, and hostility toward federal agents and cooperating witnesses, but not intentional participation in the charged conspiracy; the Ninth Circuit therefore reversed their convictions and also disapproved the use of broad, unrelated vice evidence that could have swayed the jury.


Weniger v. United States, 47 F.2d 692 (1931)