Leary v. United States
| Leary v. United States | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||
| Decided in 1969 |
||||||
|
||||||
| statement | ||||||
|
The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 compels self-incriminations and is therefore unconstitutional. |
||||||
| Positions | ||||||
|
||||||
| Applied Law | ||||||
| reaction | ||||||
|
The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 is replaced by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 |
Leary v. United States is a policy decision that the Supreme Court of the United States precipitated on May 19, 1969, a majority of five to three judges.
circumstances
The plaintiff in the matter was Timothy Francis Leary , well-known psychologist and author, who drove from Mexico to Texas with marijuana flowers in his vehicle in 1969, when border officials discovered the flowers and filed a complaint.
Dr. Leary was charged under USC 4744 (a) (2), a subsection of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 , and 21 USC 176a. During his trial in a district court, he admitted the acquisition of the marijuana in question in New York, as well as the trip with the intoxicant to Texas, to the Mexican customs post and back to the United States.
The Marijuana Tax Act provided the legal basis for a tax payable by anyone who trafficked the drug and required individuals to register with the Internal Revenue Service, including their names and the location of their business.
Dr. Leary argued that the Marijuana Tax Act made his due process impossible because it placed him in the "real and appreciable" danger of self-infliction. However, the jury found him in the above. guilty on two counts and given the maximum sentence, which the appeals court upheld. Dr. Leary appealed to the US Supreme Court and the case was accepted and opened.
Trial in the Supreme Court
The questions that the Supreme Court then dealt with were the following:
1) Convicted Dr. Learys is a violation of his rights under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution for failing to comply with the tax requirements of the Marijuana Tax Act?
2) Has Dr. Leary, by applying Section 21 of USC 176a, which provided that the defendant's possession of marijuana alone was sufficient evidence of illegal importation unless the defendant otherwise declares possession of the marijuana to the satisfaction of the jury, fails to fair?
statement
Indeed, the Court found that the Marihuana Tax Act required the plaintiff to face a real and tangible risk of self-incriminating himself, and Sections 4741–4742 required him to identify not only as a purchaser of marijuana, but as an acquirer of himself had not registered and paid the applicable tax, which would continue to be a significant part of a chain of evidence likely to establish his guilt under the then state marijuana laws.
The only way the plaintiff could have complied with the requirements of the Marijuana Tax Act was by admitting that he belonged to a group of people - unregistered acquirers - who almost certainly were violating state marijuana laws, which is irrationally arbitrary and therefore irrational is unconstitutional.
consequences
The corresponding part of the law that necessitates self-incriminations was declared unconstitutional and null and void as a violation of the 5th additional article. In response, Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.
Single receipts
- ↑ United States Supreme Court LEARY v. UNITED STATES, (1969) No. 65 Argued: Decided: May 19, 1969 . 2016. Retrieved January 2, 2016.
Web links
- Summary and explanation of the judgment (English)