Court Opinion

ID: 9456832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:03:26.962671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:06.879315
License: Public Domain

ELY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent. Even when I view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, as I am required to do, I cannot agree that it was sufficient to support the determination, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant knew that the contraband in question had previously been illegally imported into the United States. It is true that he had been directed to “bring back” the material to Mexico, but I think that the fact that his directions included those words is the only foundation for any inference that he was aware that the marijuana and drug had *1096once been in our neighboring country. Assuming such an awareness on his part, the circumstantial proof, in my opinion, remains insufficient to support the conclusion that he knew that any previous importation had been illegally made. I have no doubt that the appellant suspected that he had involved himself with persons engaged in illegal activity, but such is far from adequate to supply the crucial element of actual knowledge which the statute requires. Since no useful purpose would be served by further elaboration upon my views, I simply record my opinion that BrisenoHernandez should not have been convicted and imprisoned when the prosecution’s evidence against him was so very weak. Cf. Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969).
I would reverse.