Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/380/63/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/380/63/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Gainey, 380 U.S. 63 (1965)
United States v. Gainey
No. 13
Argued October 15, 1964
Decided March 1, 1965
380 U.S. 63
Syllabus
Respondent was convicted of illegal possession of a still and carrying on the business of a distiller without a bond, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5601(a)(1) and (4). The trial judge's instructions informed the jury of statutory provisions authorizing it to infer guilt from respondent's unexplained presence at the still site. The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions as violative of due process requirements.
Held:
1. The statutory presumption in § 5601(b)(2) is constitutionally permissible, since there is a rational connection between a defendant's unexplained presence at a still and the comprehensive crime of the illegal distilling operation. Pp. 380 U. S. 65-68.
2. The statute deprives the trial judge of none of his normal powers with respect to submitting the case to the jury or granting a judgment notwithstanding a verdict. P. 380 U. S. 68.
3. The statute does not prevent the jury from being instructed on the standards for reasonable doubt, and the jury here was instructed that the statutory inference was not conclusive. Pp. 380 U. S. 68-70.
322 F.2d 292 reversed.
