Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321207860/United-States-v-William-Newton-Van-Fossen-460-F-2d-38-4th-Cir-1972
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 15:09:04+00:00

Document:
William Newton VAN FOSSEN, Appellant.
& Hotze, Richmond, Va., on brief], for appellant.
evidence is insufficient and reverse his conviction.
arrested and subsequently convicted of counterfeiting.
on his motion and presented no evidence.
thumbprints showed Van Fossen had possession of the negatives and plate.
as alleged in the indictment.
L.Ed. 150 (1954); White v. United States, 279 F.2d 740, 748 (4th Cir.), cert.
United States v. Sherman, 421 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S.
reasonable doubt, then the evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt. . .
were impressed only during the commission of the crime. United States v.
Mason v. Common-wealth, 357 S.W.2d 667 (Ky.1962).
impressed at the time the crime was committed. See State v. Smith, 274 N.C.
(12th ed. 1955, Supp.1971); Annot. 28 A.L.R.2d 1115, 1150 (1953).
conviction. Van Fossen is not charged with simple possession of these items.
money, or aided and abetted another person in the commission of the crime.
only have guessed at this conclusion.
show that Van Fossen knew the items he touched were contraband.
to connect Van Fossen with Brown's criminal activities.
United States v. Browning, 390 F.2d 511 (4th Cir. 1968), and United States v.
the light most favorable to the Government, Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S.
possession of an illegal distillery in violation of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5601(a) (1).
related to custody of the still." 397 F.2d at 28.
evidence, standing alone, will support the inference of possession.
must have had possession of them."
"No doubt, flights of fancy, to infer innocent possession, could be indulged in. .
the defendant remains quiet at his peril." Holland v. United States, 348 U.S.
States, 162 U.S. 613, 16 S.Ct. 895, 40 L.Ed. 1090 (1896); United States v.
Ragland, 306 F.2d 732, 736 (4 Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 949, 83 S.Ct.
504, 9 L.Ed.2d 498 (1963); Moore v. United States, 271 F.2d 564, 568 (4 Cir.
crime was committed, the jury could only have guessed at this conclusion."
his conviction of that burglary; and in Borum v. United States, 127 U.S.
counterfeiting plate with the statutorily proscribed intent.
commands, induces or procures its commission is punishable as a principal. . .
presence of his thumb prints on the photographic negatives.
expert witness as to how to distinguish counterfeit bills from lawful currency.
to sell counterfeit money, and making plates for counterfeiting.
not exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. Holland v.
Lake Cherokee Hard Drive Technologies v. Marvell Asia Pte. et. al.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.