Court Opinion

ID: 9466225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:08:33.177117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:36.450489
License: Public Domain

HATCHETT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The heart of the offense charged in this case is the unlawful agreement to import and possess marijuana. It was incumbent upon the government in this circumstantial evidence case to present proof sufficient to *588eliminate any reasonable hypothesis of innocence as to each of the three appellants. United States v. Edwards, 488 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir. 1974). It was not enough for the government to show that someone acted to import and to possess marijuana. The government had to show that someone acted to import and to possess marijuana pursuant to an agreement to do so. While it is not necessary to show the agreement by direct evidence, it is necessary that the agreement be clearly shown beyond a reasonable doubt with all reasonable theories of innocence eliminated. United States v. Smith, 493 F.2d 24 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 856, 95 S.Ct. 101, 42 L.Ed.2d 88 (1974).
The majority finds the agreement requisite here in the fact that the appellants “left the safety of the Southern Star to return to a sinking vessel.” True; but the captain of the Southern Star ordered the appellants from the ship. Because this act was involuntary, it must be rejected as proof of an agreement. Even assuming the appellants voluntarily left the Southern Star, the hypothesis remains that each appellant joined the other two in an agreement to destroy the marijuana — not to import it. Additionally, since the proof was insufficient to identify the two persons throwing the bales overboard, a reasonable hypothesis remained that any one of the appellants, although aware of the presence of marijuana, never joined in any agreement or participated in any act in furtherance of its goals.
Courts must be vigilant to prevent conspiracy, an admittedly broad theory of prosecution, from becoming the “drag-net” charge for prosecutors who have suspicions but lack proof.
For these reasons, and because the controlling facts are identical to those in United States v. Reyes, 595 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1979), I respectfully dissent.