United States v. Romano
382 U.S. 136, 15 L. Ed. 2d 210, 1965 U.S. LEXIS 207 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statutory inference that allows a jury to find a defendant guilty of possessing an illegal still based solely on the defendant's unexplained presence at the still site violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because there is no rational connection between mere presence and the specific crime of possession, custody, or control.
Facts:
- Federal officers obtained and executed a search warrant for a building within an industrial complex in Jewett City, Connecticut.
- Inside the building, the officers discovered an operating illegal still.
- The respondents were found standing a few feet away from the operating still.
- There was no evidence presented regarding the specific roles or functions the respondents were performing at the still site.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondents were indicted in federal trial court on three counts: (1) possession of an illegal still, (2) illegal production of distilled spirits, and (3) conspiracy.
- Following a trial, a jury found the respondents guilty on all three counts.
- Respondents appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conspiracy conviction but reversed the convictions for possession (Count 1) and illegal production (Count 2), holding that the jury instructions based on the statutory inferences violated the Fifth Amendment.
- The United States (petitioner) was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the constitutional issue regarding the reversal of the possession conviction.
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 the federal statutory provision, 26 U.S.C. § 5601(b)(1), which permits a jury to infer from a defendant's unexplained presence at an illegal still that the defendant was in possession, custody, or control of that still, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice White
Yes, the statutory provision violates the Due Process Clause. For a statutory inference to be constitutionally valid, there must be a 'rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed.' In this case, the fact proved is the defendant's presence at the still, and the ultimate fact presumed is the crime of possession, custody, or control. While presence at an illegal still is sufficient to infer participation in the broader crime of 'carrying on' the distilling business, it is too tenuous to support a rational inference of the specific and narrower crime of 'possession.' Presence alone tells us nothing about a defendant's specific function, which could be related to supply, delivery, or operations, none of which constitute possession, custody, or control. The inference is therefore arbitrary and violates due process.
Analysis:
This case refines the 'rational connection' test for statutory presumptions in criminal law by emphasizing that the connection must be rational not just for a related criminal enterprise, but for the specific, charged offense. It distinguishes the broad crime of 'carrying on' a business (as in United States v. Gainey), where presence is highly probative, from the narrow crime of 'possession,' where it is not. The decision significantly limits Congress's ability to create evidentiary shortcuts that could lead to convictions for specific crimes based on ambiguous evidence, reinforcing the due process requirement that the prosecution prove each element of a specific offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
