United States v. Gainey
1965 U.S. LEXIS 1733, 13 L. Ed. 2d 658, 380 U.S. 63 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statutory inference that allows a jury to infer guilt for the crime of 'carrying on the business of a distiller' from a defendant's unexplained presence at an illegal still site does not violate the Due Process Clause where a rational connection exists between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed.
Facts:
- Jackie Gainey drove a truck with darkened headlights to the site of a secluded still hidden in a swamp in Dooly County, Georgia.
- Gainey exited the vehicle, activated a flashlight, and walked towards the still.
- At the still site, Gainey was confronted by state and federal revenue agents.
- Gainey attempted to flee from the agents but was apprehended after a short chase along with his colleagues.
Procedural Posture:
- Jackie Gainey was tried by a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
- The jury convicted Gainey for possession of an unregistered still and for carrying on the business of a distiller without a bond.
- The District Court imposed concurrent sentences for the convictions.
- Gainey, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions, holding the statutory inferences upon which the jury was instructed were unconstitutional.
- The United States, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal statute, 26 U.S.C. § 5601(b)(2), which provides that a defendant's unexplained presence at an illegal still 'shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction' for carrying on the business of a distiller, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stewart
No. The statutory inference in 26 U.S.C. § 5601(b)(2) does not violate the Due Process Clause. The constitutionality of such an inference depends on the rationality of the connection between the facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed. Congress is accorded significant weight in determining such rationality, and it is reasonable to conclude that strangers are rarely present at a secluded, illegal still. Therefore, a defendant's unexplained presence has probative value in determining whether they were 'carrying on' the illegal business, a very broad offense that includes many ancillary roles. The statute is also procedurally sound because it creates a permissive, not mandatory, inference; it does not require a judge to submit the case to the jury, preclude a directed verdict, or prevent the jury from acquitting if the government fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. While the statute as construed by the Court is merely a rule of evidence, the jury instruction based on the statute's language—specifically that the inference may be drawn 'unless the defendant explains such presence to the satisfaction of the jury'—violates the Fifth Amendment. This language amounts to an improper comment on the defendant's decision not to testify. It places subtle but impermissible pressure on the defendant to take the stand, running counter to the established federal rule that a defendant's silence cannot be used against him.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
Yes. The statute is unconstitutional because it violates the rights to a trial by jury, due process, and the privilege against self-incrimination. First, it allows Congress to encroach upon the exclusive judicial function of determining what evidence is sufficient for a conviction, which is the role of the judge and jury. Second, mere presence at a still is not, by itself, sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person was carrying on the business, as prior case law has suggested. Third, the practical effect of the statute is to compel a defendant to testify to rebut the presumption, thereby violating the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Analysis:
This decision affirms the constitutionality of permissive statutory inferences in criminal law, provided they meet the 'rational connection' test established in Tot v. United States. The Court grants significant deference to congressional judgment in assessing what real-world facts logically support an inference of criminal activity. This ruling strengthens the government's ability to prosecute crimes where direct evidence of participation is hard to obtain, such as in clandestine operations. However, the dissents raise durable constitutional concerns about the potential for such statutes to undermine the jury's role as the sole fact-finder and to subtly coerce defendants into waiving their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
