James Henry v. United States

Appellant Henry, jointly with the defendant Fuller, was charged with and convicted of knowingly receiving and possessing twenty-two packages of pressure regulators which had been stolen from an interstate shipment of goods. ( 18 U.S.C. § 659 .)

Error is claimed in .five particulars: (1) the insufficiency of the evidence that appellant knew the goods had been stolen; (2) that the trial judge coerced the verdict; (3) that the appellant was required to defend his innocence as to other stolen items; (4) that a new trial should have been granted upon the ground of newly discovered evidence; and (5) that there was prejudicial misconduct by the United States Attorney in his summarization to the jury.

We find the only point of any substance is the first. Obviously, there could be no direct evidence, save from the appellant himself, as to his state of mind — whether he knew or did not know the merchandise was stolen. He testified on his own behalf, but was not asked, nor did he testify, whether or not he knew the regulators were stolen.

Such lack of direct evidence, however, does not end the matter. There were various facts in evidence which, if believed by the jury, entitled it to…