Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/68

 wife and children had been present at Yee's housewarming party (R. 20–21).

Accordingly, the confession was properly considered by the trial judge as substantiated. Despite Toy's obvious effort to exculpate himself, his cleverness in this respect, as in the case of Opper v. United States, supra, 348 U.S. 84, fell short of success. For Toy in his admissions, while seeking to paint Wong Sun as the seller and transporter of the heroin to Yee's house, admitted accepting enough heroin on June 1 for 3 or 4 cigarettes, and a bindle of heroin on June 3 "enough for 5 or 6 cigaretscigarettes [sic]", to say nothing of Toy's aiding and abetting of Wong Sun in the transportation See 18 U.S.C. 2. Toy thus admitted possession of part of the heroin on June 1 and therefore was subject to the statutory presumption of guilty knowledge arising from possession of narcotics. The evidence of the amount of heroin at Yee's house on June 4 clearly corroborated Toy's admission of the availability of heroin for delivery to him at Yee's house on or about June 1.

The trial judge was not required to believe the entirety of either Toy's confession or that of Wong Sun. In Opper v. United States, supra, 348 U.S. 84,