Court Opinion

ID: 9639612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:41:46.053236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:20.151461
License: Public Domain

WEST, District Judge.
I respectfully dissent. The record shows that the substantial question was, in the language of the charge: “Whether the unusual circumstances were such as to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent had guilty knowledge of the fact that the packages contained whisky and beer and that he was assisting in the unlawful transportation thereof.”
Consequently the evidence of the transaction of August 21, not being admissible on the bare question of defendant’s knowledge on May 9 preceding, should not have been admitted on the theory that it tended to throw light upon his motive or intent, these depending solely upon his knowledge or lack of knowledge. And, if this proof was thought by the government to go to motive or intent, it should and no doubt would have been introduced in chief instead of on rebuttal.