Court Opinion

ID: 9455857
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:35:40.149072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:45.596855
License: Public Domain

KALODNER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting)-
In the instant case the unchallenged evidence established a sale and delivery of heroin in violation of the federal narcotics laws by Pratt’s co-defendant, Wilson, in Pratt’s presence. Wilson and Pratt were jointly charged with having made the unlawful sale in a two-count *694indictment. Wilson pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a 5-year prison term. Pratt elected to stand trial.
The jury found that the totality of the circumstantial evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Pratt was involved in the unlawful sale of heroin by Wilson to federal narcotics agent Moore and returned a guilty verdict against him.
The majority now sets aside the jury’s verdict and directs Pratt’s acquittal because it finds that the evidence only established the “possibility” of Pratt’s involvement in the unlawful sale of heroin.
In so deciding, the majority has usurped the jury function in contravention of these well-settled principles: “If the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt” a reviewing court “can require no more;”1 appellate courts cannot “weigh the evidence” and “the verdict of a jury must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government to support it;”2 and it is not necessary, in appraising the sufficiency of evidence, that an appellate court “be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of a defendant.” 3
“We note that there is no merit to the contention advanced by the defendant Baysor * * * that his ‘possession’ of the narcotics sold was not established by ‘direct evidence’ and that his conviction must be reversed for that reason. Our holding in United States v. Malfi, 3 Cir., 1959, 264 F.2d 147 that ‘possession’ may be established by circumstantial evidence is dispositive here. Other circuits are in accord: Cellino v. United States, 9 Cir.. 1960, 276 F.2d 941; United States v. Pinna, 7 Cir., 1956, 229 F.2d 216; United States v. Pisano, 7 Cir., 1951, 193 F.2d 355, 31 A.L.R.2d 409.”
It is settled that there is no distinction between direct or testimonial evidence and circumstantial evidence. In Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L.Ed. 731 (1954), it was specifically held at page 140, 75 S.Ct. at page 137: “Circumstantial evidence * * * is intrinsically no different from testimonial evidence.” 4 (emphasis supplied)
This Court has specifically rejected the contention that only direct evidence can establish violation of the federal narcotics laws, and held that such violation may be proved by circumstantial evidence alone.5
We have time and again ruled that in testing whether circumstantial evidence supports a conviction “the question is whether all the pieces of evidence against the defendant, taken together, make a strong enough case to let a jury find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” and that “the evidence does not need to be inconsistent with every conclusion save that of guilt if it does establish a case from which the jury can find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” 6
I dissent from the majority’s disposition since, in my opinion, the totality of the circumstances established by “all the *695pieces of evidence against the defendant, taken together” made “a strong enough case to let a jury find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Pratt and his co-defendant Wilson were jointly charged in the indictment with having made an unlawful sale' of narcotics, and with aiding and abetting one another in the sale.7 We have specifically held: “In regard to substantive offenses, it is not necessary that the government show the appellant personally committed the offenses in question, for by virtue of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2, an aider or abetter in the commission of crimes is to be treated as a principal.” (emphasis supplied, footnote omitted).8 Further, where two defendants are jointly charged in an indictment with unlawful sale of narcotics, it is immaterial which of the two possessed and/or delivered the narcotics to the purchaser.9 Moreover, it is settled that proof of “possession” need not be adduced in a prosecution for sale of heroin in violation of §§ 4704(a) and 4705(a), 26 U.S.C.A., since “possession” is not a necessary element of either of the substantive crimes which these two statutes define.10
The totality of the circumstances established by the testimony may be summarized as follows:
Federal narcotics agent Moore contacted Pratt’s co-defendant Wilson at the Malibu Bar in the North Side area of Pittsburgh in an effort to buy heroin. Wilson told Moore he would buy the heroin for him. An hour or so later, the two men met again at the bar; Wilson then said he would have to go to the Hill District of Pittsburgh to get the heroin and they then proceeded to drive there in Moore’s ear. When they reached their destination Wilson asked Moore how many bags of heroin he wanted. Moore said he had $20.00 and Wilson took the $20.00 and said he would get three bags of heroin. Wilson then walked around the corner and there met Pratt and conversed with him for about five minute. No one contacted them during this period. Pratt then left Wilson, turned the corner, walked up to Moore’s car, leaned over its windshield and looked Moore over. He then walked back to Wilson and after a brief conversation the two men entered Moore’s car, Wilson in front and Pratt in the rear seat. After they did so, Wilson handed Moore two glassine bags of heroin. Moore asked for the third bag. Wilson said he had it and that Pratt and he were going to “shoot it up”, and that Pratt had put $4.00 toward its cost. Moore and Wilson then engaged in an argument about the third bag. Pratt interrupted and said “Let’s drive out of the area.” (The area is a narcotics distribution center.) Pratt then directed Moore to drive him to 1837 Webster Avenue which turned-out to be a vacant lot. Pratt and Wilson there left Moore’s car and walked through the lot over to Bedford Avenue *696where Pratt actually lived. Ten minutes later Wilson returned to Moore’s car and asked to be driven back to the North Side area. Pratt, in his defense, testified that his meeting with Wilson was by chance; Wilson said he would drive him to his home and told him to get into his car; when he walked over to the car he saw Moore sitting in it and then walked back to Wilson and so advised him; several minutes later he and Wilson proceeded to the car and entered it; he didn’t hear anything said about narcotics by Moore or Wilson while he was in the car; he didn’t supply Wilson with any narcotics; he had been a narcotic addict in the past but was no longer so; he had been convicted several years pri- or of a narcotics offense and received a suspended sentence and placed on probation; he directed Moore to drive to the Webster Avenue lot because it afforded a “short-cut” to his home on Bedford Avenue; he and Wilson proceeded to his home because Wilson said he had to use the “rest room.”
It may here be noted parenthetically that the trial judge for some inexplicable reason refused to permit the prosecution to question Pratt as to the nature of his prior narcotics conviction, albeit he had himself introduced evidence of that conviction.
The majority, as earlier stated, set aside the jury’s verdict and directs acquittal because it finds an absence of “proof” of Pratt’s involvement in the unlawful sale of heroin and it finds that the evidence merely established the “possibility” of such involvement. In doing so it concedes that the evidence establishes that “[i]t is possible * * * that Pratt gave the two glassine packages of heroin to Wilson during the course of one of their conversations on the street,” and “[i]t would appear as if Pratt in his inspection of Moore in Moore’s car * * * posssibly was sizing up a prospective customer.” (emphasis supplied).
It was, however, the jury’s function to determine whether the evidence merely pointed to “possibilities” or established beyond a reasonable doubt Pratt’s guilt.
Significant and relevant here is this statement in Holland v. United States, supra, 348 U.S. at page 140, 75 S.Ct. at page 137, in commenting on the weight of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases and the jury’s function with respect to it:
“Circumstantial evidence in this respect is intrinsically no different from testimonial evidence. Admittedly, circumstantial evidence may in some cases point to a wholly incorrect result. Yet this is equally true of testimonial evidence. In both instances, a jury is asked to weigh the chances that the evidence correctly points to guilt against the possibility of inaccuracy or ambiguous inference. In both, the jury must use its experience with people and events in weighing the probabilities. If the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, we can require no more." (emphasis supplied).
Pertinent here, too, is the following statement in the oft-cited Stoppelli v. United States, 183 F.2d 391, at page 394 (9 Cir. 1950), cert. den. 340 U.S.. 864, 71 S.Ct. 88, 95 L.Ed. 631:
“The true administration of criminal justice needs self-restraint on the part of the reviewing court in what is unfortunately sometimes a ‘ferreting out’ quest for errors in a ‘cold record’. The search for justice must not degenerate into a pursuit of complete abstract-inerrancy — an unattainable goal when dealing with human beings.” 11 This, too, must be said-.
Orozco-Vasquez v. United States, 344 F.2d 827 (9 Cir. 1965), cert. den. sub *697nom. Buckley v. United States, 386 U.S. 1010, 87 S.Ct. 1354, 18 L.Ed.2d 438 (1967), cited by the majority, is inapposite on its facts. There, the Court found that the Government’s evidence established only that the defendant Molano “on one day twice watered a guilty defendant’s lawn, and drove that same defendant (his girl friend) to and from an appointment where narcotics were sold, but in which sale he did not participate, and at which he was not present,” and “[t]here was never any proof Molano ever had any personal, actual possession of narcotics, nor constructive possession of them, nor knowledge of their presence in someone else’s possession in the car he drove (if they were present).” (emphasis supplied).
In the instant case, there was unchallenged evidence that Pratt was present when the sale of heroin was consummated by its delivery to Moore. Further, the unchallenged evidence established that prior to the sale’s consummation, Pratt inspected Moore in Moore’s car, “as if” (according to the majority) he “possibly was sizing up a prospective customer.” To the foregoing must be added that the majority concedes that under the circumstantial evidence “It is possible * * * that Pratt gave the two glassine packages of heroin to Wilson during the course of one of their conversations on the street.”
The only other case cited by the majority, United States v. Duff, 332 F.2d 702 (6 Cir. 1964), is also inapposite on its facts. There the. evidence established that one Duff made a sale of narcotics in an apartment which he shared with the defendant Edith Williams. The Court found that “[t]he evidence shows that defendant Williams was a passive spectator to the sale but took no part in it” and set aside her conviction on that ground.
In consonance with what has been said I would affirm the judgment of sentence of the District Court.

. Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 140, 75 S.Ct. 127 (1954), rehearing denied 348 U.S. 932. 75 S.Ct. 334, 99 L.Ed. 731 (1955).

. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). To the same effect see Fox v. United States, 381 F.2d 125, 128 (9 Cir. 1967); United States v. Buckley. 379 F.2d 424, 426 (7 Cir. 1907), cert. den. 389 U.S. 929, 88 S.Ct. 289, 19 L.Ed.2d 280; United States v. Malfi, 264 F.2d 147, 150 (3 Cir. 1959), cert. den. 361 U.S. 817, 80 S.Ct. 57, 4 L.Ed.2d 63.

. Moore v. United States, 271 F.2d 564. 568 (4 Cir. 1959).

. In Rodella v. United States, 286 F.2d 306 (9 Cir. 1900), cert. den. 365 U.S. 889, 81 S.Ct. 1042, 6 L.Ed.2d 199 (1961), the Court said (p. 312): “Any attempted differential between direct and circumstantial evidence at times becomes indistinct, and in law, unimportant.” (emphasis supplied).
In 3 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, 472 (12th ed. 1955) it is said: “As a legal matter, there is no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence.” (emphasis supplied).

. United States v. Raysor, 294 F.2d 563 (3 Cir. 1961). We there said at page 567:

. United States v. Allard, 240 F.2d S40, 841 (1957), cert. den. sub nom. Fishman *695V. United States, 353 U.S. 939, 77 S.Ct. 814, 1 L.Ed.2d 761 cited and followed in United States v. Giuliano, 263 F.2d 582, 583 (3 Cir. 1959). To the same effect see Eason v. United States, 281 F.2d 818, 821 (9 Cir. 1960).

. The Indictment charged Pratt and Wilson with violation of §§ 4704(a) and 4705(a), 26 U.S.C.A.. and § 2, 18 U.S. C.A.
§ 4704(a) makes it a crime to sell narcotics “except in the original stamped package or from the original stamped package,” and § 4705(a) makes it a crime to sell narcotics “except in pursuance of a written order * * * on a form to be issued for that purpose by the Secretary or his delegate.” (emphasis supplied). § 2(a) provides: “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.”

. United States v. Giuliano, 263 F.2d 582, 585 (3 Cir. 1959). See, too, United States v. Monticello, 264 F.2d 47, 50 (3 Cir. 1959).

. Walker v. United States, 301 F.2d 94, 96 (5 Cir. 1962); United States v. Maroy, 248 F.2d 663, 666 (7 Cir. 1957), cert. den. 355 U.S. 931, 78 S.Ct. 412, 2 L.Ed.2d 414 (1958).

. United States v. La Rocca, 224 F.2859, 860 (2 Cir. 1955); United States v. Brown, 207 F.2d 310, 312 (7 Cir. 1953).

. In Stoppelli, the court rejected the appellant’s contention, similar to that presented here, that the circumstantial evideuce upon which his conviction for a narcotics offense was based was insufficient to sustain the jury’s guilty verdict.