Court Opinion

ID: 9455688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:29:33.70452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:41.467172
License: Public Domain

KILKENNY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
The trial judge made a specific finding that each defendant had knowledge of the importation of the marihuana. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the judge in arriving at this specific finding was in any way relying on the statutory presumption.2 The trial judge’s reference, in his findings, to “possession of the marihuana”, in my opinion, is clearly directed to knowledge of the existence of marihuana in the trunk of the automobile, rather than to the possession under the invalid § 176a presumption. Here, as distinguished from Howard v. United States, 423 F.2d 1102 (9th Cir., 1970), the findings are specific, rather than ambiguous.
I would affirm.

. 21 Ü.S.C. § 176a.