## 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

1. 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.
2. 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.


Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969)