Leary v. United States
395 U.S. 6 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute's requirement to pay a transfer tax on an illegal item violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination if compliance would create a real and appreciable hazard of incrimination. Furthermore, a statutory presumption in a criminal case violates due process if the presumed fact is not more likely than not to flow from the proven fact.
Facts:
- On December 20, 1965, Dr. Timothy Leary left New York by car for a trip to Yucatan, Mexico, accompanied by his teenage son and daughter and two other people.
- On December 22, 1965, the group crossed the International Bridge to Laredo, Texas, and stopped at the Mexican customs station.
- After being denied entry into Mexico, they drove back across the bridge to the American secondary inspection area.
- Leary's group told a U.S. customs inspector they had nothing to declare from Mexico.
- The inspector observed what appeared to be marihuana seeds on the floor of the car.
- A subsequent search of the car revealed small amounts of marihuana, and a search of Leary's daughter uncovered a snuff box containing semi-refined marihuana.
- Leary had acquired the marihuana in New York and had not obtained an order form or paid the transfer tax required by the Marihuana Tax Act.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. Timothy Leary was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on three counts: (1) smuggling marihuana, (2) transporting and concealing marihuana knowing it was illegally imported, and (3) transporting and concealing marihuana as a transferee without having paid the required transfer tax.
- At trial, the District Court dismissed the smuggling count.
- The jury convicted Leary on the two remaining counts.
- Leary appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which is an intermediate federal appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Leary's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does compelling a person to comply with the transfer tax provisions of the Marihuana Tax Act, which requires self-identification as a transferee of an illegal substance, violate their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination? 2. Does the statutory presumption in 21 U.S.C. § 176a, which allows a jury to infer from mere possession of marihuana that the possessor knew it was illegally imported, violate the Due Process Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Harlan
1. Yes, compelling a person to comply with the Marihuana Tax Act's transfer provisions violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Court reasoned that the Act required a transferee, in the course of paying the tax, to identify themselves as a member of a 'selective group inherently suspect of criminal activities.' This self-identification would provide a significant 'link in a chain' of evidence for prosecution under state laws that criminalized marijuana possession, creating a 'real and appreciable' hazard of self-incrimination. The Court rejected the government's argument that regulations effectively prohibited non-registrants from paying the tax, finding this interpretation contrary to the clear congressional intent to tax, not absolutely prohibit, such transfers. 2. Yes, the statutory presumption that possession of marihuana is sufficient evidence to prove knowledge of illegal importation violates the Due Process Clause. Applying the 'rational connection' test from Tot v. United States, the Court held that a criminal presumption is unconstitutional unless it can be said with substantial assurance that the presumed fact is more likely than not to flow from the proven fact. After an extensive empirical review of data on marihuana cultivation and consumption, the Court found it could not conclude that a majority of marihuana possessors in the United States know their marihuana was imported. Therefore, the inference of knowledge from the fact of possession was arbitrary and violated due process.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Stewart
Justice Stewart joined the Court's opinion regarding the due process violation (Part II). As to the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination issue (Part I), he concurred only in the judgment. He reiterated his belief that the Court has expanded the Fifth Amendment privilege beyond its original intent, but felt bound by the authoritative weight of precedent, specifically Marchetti and Grosso.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Black
Justice Black concurred in the result for both counts. He fully joined the Court's reasoning on the Fifth Amendment issue. On the due process issue, he disagreed with the 'irrational or arbitrary' test. Instead, he argued the presumption is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers and the defendant's right to a trial by jury, as Congress has no power to instruct a jury what evidence is sufficient for conviction. By doing so, Congress deprives the defendant of a trial according to the 'law of the land' guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
Analysis:
This decision significantly impacts two areas of constitutional law. First, it solidifies the doctrine from Marchetti v. United States, confirming that federal tax and registration statutes cannot be used to compel self-incrimination for activities that are widely criminalized by the states. Second, and more broadly, it establishes the 'more likely than not' standard as the critical test for the constitutionality of statutory presumptions in criminal law under the Due Process Clause. This requires courts to engage in a detailed, empirical analysis of the real-world connection between a proven fact and a presumed element of a crime, setting a high bar for legislatures seeking to ease the prosecution's burden of proof through such presumptions.
Unlock the full brief for Leary v. United States