Facts
- Timothy F. Leary drove from New York toward Mexico with his teenage daughter, son, and two others.
- At the Laredo, Texas border crossing, the group entered Mexico but was apparently denied entry and returned to the United States.
- During secondary inspection, an inspector saw suspected marijuana seeds, obtained permission to search, and found small amounts of marijuana in the car and on Leary’s daughter.
- Leary was indicted for (1) smuggling marijuana, (2) transporting/concealing marijuana knowing it was illegally imported under 21 U.S.C. § 176a, and (3) transporting/concealing marijuana as a transferee who had not paid the Marihuana Tax Act transfer tax under 26 U.S.C. § 4744(a)(2).
- The trial court dismissed the smuggling count; a jury convicted Leary on the remaining counts.
- Leary admitted he acquired the marijuana in New York and transported it, but denied knowing where it was grown.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
- Whether 26 U.S.C. § 4744(a)(2) violated the Fifth Amendment by effectively requiring marijuana possessors to comply with a tax/order-form scheme that created a real risk of self-incrimination.
- Whether the due process clause permitted applying 21 U.S.C. § 176a’s presumption that possession establishes illegal importation and the possessor’s knowledge of illegal importation.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed Leary’s convictions on both counts (Justice Harlan writing; judgment unanimous).
- The Court held § 4744(a)(2) could not constitutionally be applied because compliance with the Marihuana Tax Act’s requirements would expose a possessor to a real and appreciable risk of self-incrimination.
- The Court held § 176a’s possession-based presumption was invalid as applied because the Government did not establish a rational connection between possession and knowledge of illegal importation given substantial domestic marijuana production.
Legal Principles
- A statutory scheme violates the Fifth Amendment when it requires a person to provide information that would create a real and appreciable risk of prosecution, and the privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted as a complete defense to compliance-based criminal liability.
- For a criminal presumption to satisfy due process, there must be a rational connection between the proved fact and the presumed fact, and the presumed fact must be more likely than not to flow from the proved fact.
- A presumption that possession implies illegal importation and knowledge cannot stand where evidence shows substantial lawful or unlawful domestic sources such that importation and knowledge are not more likely than not.
Conclusion
The Court set aside Leary’s convictions because the Marihuana Tax Act’s transfer-tax mechanism effectively compelled incriminating disclosures and because § 176a’s possession-based presumption lacked the required rational connection to illegal importation and knowledge in light of significant domestic marijuana production.