## Facts

- John Wayne Pennington and John Mitchell Margiotta, commercial truck drivers from Miami, arranged to haul a load of unglazed Mexican tile from Rio Grande City, Texas, to Miami after finishing a delivery in Laredo.
- They testified the trailer was empty before loading and that they did not see anything loaded other than tile; they did not observe the entire loading process.
- The tile was loaded on heavy pallets; the trailer was left unlocked overnight at a truck stop.
- A customs agent stopped the truck after it was found to be overweight.
- A drug-sniffing dog alerted at the rear of the trailer, and officers discovered about 591 pounds of marijuana concealed behind the tile pallets.
- The government relied on circumstantial evidence of knowledge, including an irregular schedule and route and the defendants’ evasive responses when questioned about those irregularities.
- A jury convicted Margiotta of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and convicted Pennington of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana.
- Both defendants moved for judgments of acquittal based on insufficient evidence; the district court denied the motions.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant knowingly possessed marijuana with intent to distribute.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Pennington knowingly joined a conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute.
3. Whether the district court erred by refusing Pennington’s requested jury instruction emphasizing that control of a vehicle containing hidden drugs, without proof of knowledge, is insufficient to establish knowing possession.
4. Whether Pennington was entitled to relief based on alleged prosecutorial comment on his post-arrest silence and an alleged sentencing error for firearm possession.

## Decision

- The court held the evidence was sufficient to support Margiotta’s conviction and affirmed as to him.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to support Pennington’s convictions under the deferential sufficiency standard.
- The court reversed Pennington’s convictions and remanded for a new trial because the district court wrongly refused Pennington’s requested “knowing possession” instruction, and the error was not harmless given that the case turned on competing inferences about knowledge.
- In light of the reversal and remand for new trial, the court did not resolve Pennington’s remaining claims in a way that affected the disposition.

## Legal Principles

- When contraband is hidden and not readily visible or accessible, control of the vehicle or trailer, standing alone, is insufficient to prove knowing possession; additional circumstantial evidence must support an inference of knowledge.
- On sufficiency review, an appellate court asks whether a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict; it does not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility.
- A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a theory of defense if it is legally correct, supported by some evidence, and not adequately covered by the general charge.
- Refusal to give a properly requested, defense-centered instruction on the knowledge element can require reversal and a new trial where knowledge is the central contested issue.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit affirmed Margiotta’s conviction because the circumstantial evidence permitted an inference that he knew marijuana was concealed in the trailer, but it reversed Pennington’s convictions and remanded for a new trial because the jury was not properly instructed—despite sufficient evidence—on the defense theory that mere control of a truck with hidden drugs does not establish knowing possession without proof of awareness.


United States v. Pennington, 20 F.3d 593 (5th Cir. 1994)