[1] The case enunciated the principle of Pinkerton liability, a prominent concept in the law of conspiracy.

Daniel Pinkerton appealed, claiming that because only his brother had committed the substantive crimes he was incorrectly convicted.

The actual crime committed may have been moonshining and the government chose to prosecute for tax evasion.

They were suspected of "unlawful possession, transportation and dealing of whiskey.

[2] At issue is whether a defendant can be held liable for substantive crimes committed by another in the furtherance of a conspiracy in which they are joined.