if you find that my client held up Mr. Uphouse on February 19th, and the Government has established that to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt, you find him guilty of the possession of the merchandise on February 24th.


18
Of course, if he held him up, then he was involved in the possession, even though it was not physically in his custody.  He had to be involved in the possession, he had to have exercised dominion and control over it, as the Court will charge you.


19
But on the other hand, the converse is also true."


20
We hold that the evidence that DeLorenzo participated in the hijacking was properly admitted at his trial on the charge of possession.

III.

21
Two of the appellants contend that conduct of the prosecutor during summation wasat the time of his arrest, he was talking with both McCarthy and DeLorenzo (both of whom had been seen escorting the truck of stolen ingots to the smelter).  As a result of the surveillance reports from the team of F.B.I. agents, their superior, Special Agent Ahearn, ordered Mullin "to pick up the three individuals on the corner", referring to appellants McCarthy, DeLorenzo and Komplita.  He did.


33
We hold, on the totality of the facts and circumstances summarized above, that at the time of Komplita's arrest, F.B.I. agent Mullin, acting upon an order of his superior that resulted from the pooling of the knowledge of the surveillance team of F.B.I. agents, was warranted as a prudent man in believing that Komplita had committed or was committing a