Yee Hem v. United States

Background

A man was convicted for concealing smoking opium after it was imported, and he challenged parts of a federal law that banned opium imports. He was arrested in August 1923 while hiding smoking opium. The statute said opium found in the United States after April 1, 1909, would be presumed to have been imported after that date, and that possession without a satisfactory explanation would be enough evidence to allow conviction. At trial the judge told the jury the defendant had to explain his possession to rebut those presumptions. The defendant argued this violated due process and the Fifth Amendment protection against being compelled to incriminate himself.

Reasoning

The central question was whether Congress could create rebuttable presumptions linking possession of opium to unlawful importation. The Court said Congress may set rules of evidence when there is a rational connection between the proved fact and the presumed fact and when the rule does not arbitrarily block a defendant from presenting a defense. The Court found it reasonable to infer that smoking opium found many years after the import ban was likely unlawfully imported. It emphasized that the statute did not force anyone to testify; an accused person remains presumed innocent and may choose whether to explain possession.

Real world impact

The decision upholds the power of Congress to use evidentiary presumptions to enforce import prohibitions and affirms the conviction in this case. People found with smoking opium long after the ban will face a legal presumption of unlawful importation unless they can satisfactorily explain possession. The Court acknowledged that sometimes only the accused may have the facts needed to rebut the presumption, but said that practical difficulty does not make the statute unconstitutional.