United States v. Romano

Background

Federal officers with a search warrant entered a building in an industrial complex and found several people standing a few feet from an operating still. Two of those people were charged with three crimes: possessing and controlling an illegal still, producing distilled spirits, and conspiring to produce them. A trial jury convicted them on all counts, and the Court of Appeals affirmed one conviction but reversed two after the trial judge read a statute that told jurors presence alone was enough to convict unless the defendant explained it.

Reasoning

The Court reviewed whether the law that allowed a jury to treat mere presence at a still as enough evidence of possession was constitutional. Relying on prior decisions, the Court said a legislative inference must have a reasonable, real-world connection between the fact proved and the fact presumed. Presence can reasonably show someone is “carrying on” an illegal distilling business, but earlier cases held—and this Court reaffirmed—that mere presence does not reasonably prove possession, custody, or control. Congress’s 1958 change added a rebuttable presumption based on presence but did not change the statutory definition of possession, so the Court rejected the Government’s attempt to equate presence with possession.

Real world impact

The Court held the statutory inference allowing conviction for possession based only on presence is invalid, so prosecutors must present evidence of a defendant’s specific role, control, or custody to prove possession. The conviction on the possession count was reversed; other counts tied to concurrent sentences were not decided here.

Dissents or concurrances

Three Justices joined the result but noted different reasoning: Justice Black, Justice Douglas, and Justice Fortas each filed or joined separate views explaining their positions with reference to earlier opinions in related cases.