Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Nelson (D) and Brewton were indicted for robbery. Brewton was found incompetent to stand trial and D was tried separately and convicted. Direct evidence was offered that Brewton entered a bank and handed a teller a note demanding money. Brewton was handed $627 including five marked $20 bills. An unidentified person was waiting in a running car (racing the engine) in an adjacent parking lot to the bank where Brewton fled and they immediately sped away. An alerted police officer spotted the car a few blocks away and gave chase; the officer pursued at high speed. The car slowed, and D alighted from the car and was apprehended with $125. Brewton was arrested 15 minutes later attempting to hide $502 under a nearby building (including the marked currency). D was charged as a principle and not an accessory. D contends that the government was required to prove that D had actual knowledge of the planned robbery by Brewton. D contends the government used an inference of circumstantial evidence upon another inference of circumstantial evidence and such a use was not proper.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.