United States v. Romano (1965)
- Docket
- 2
- Decided
- 1965-01-01
- Category
- General
Summary
Question: Did Romano and Ottiano's presence at the illegal operation in and of itself justify their convictions for possession? If jury instruction was invalid, is that sufficient to invalidate the charges for possession? Conclusion: No and yes. Writing for a unanimous court with three concurrences, Justice Byron White held that the jury could not simply infer possession from Romano and Ottiano's presence at the still. Romano and Ottiano's presence near the still created a rebuttable presumption; hence, the jury was improperly instructed that presence necessarily required a finding of guilt. Justice White rejected the government's argument that the amendment signified Congress' intention to overrule Section 5601(a)(1), effectively equating presence with possession. He found no evidence of this intention in the legislative history and noted that the government presented no cases where possession of a substance was proven solely by a defendant's presence near that substance. The Court did not rule on Romano and Ottiano's charge for production of distilled spirits because its sentence was concurrent with the conspiracy charge, which was not at issue. Justice Hugo Black concurred. Referring to his dissent in United States v. Gainey , he held that the statute itself was an unconstitutional violation of Romano and Ottiano's Fifth Amendment right to due process, right against self-incrimination, and Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury because the statute compels defendants to testify in order to rebut a presumption of guilt. Justice William Douglas also concurred. He referred to his own dissent in Gainey , where he interpreted Section 5601(b)(1) as a description of a rule of evidence allowing but not mandating a jury to infer possession from a defendant's presence near an unregistered still. Justice Abraham Fortas concurred without comment.