United States v. Savage
Opinion
Here the trial judge, sitting without a jury and acting on clear evidence that defendant had possession of heroin, used the statutory inference permitted from possession to find that the drug had been illegally imported into the United States and that the statute 21 U.S.C. § 174 had been violated. There have been too many cases sustaining this or a like inference as reasonable and rational for us now to hold it invalid. Yee Hem v. United States, 268 U.S. 178, 184, 45 S.Ct. 470, 69 L.Ed. 904; Casey v. United States, 276 U.S. 413, 418, 48 S.Ct. 373, 72 L.Ed. 632; United States v. Moe Liss, 2 Cir., 105 F.2d 144, 146; Velasquez v. United States, 10 Cir., 244 F.2d 416, 419; Cellino v. United States, 9 Cir., 276 F.2d 941, 943-946; Walker v. United States, 5 Cir., 285 F.2d 52, 58-60.
We are indebted to assigned counsel and to the New York Legal Aid Society for ably protecting the rights of the accused.
Conviction affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
292 F.2d 264 (United States v. Savage) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.