DOJ-OGR-00008595.jpg
686 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
686 KB
Summary
This legal document is a jury instruction, specifically Instruction No. 39, filed on December 18, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It defines the concept of "conscious avoidance" or "willful blindness," instructing the jury that they can consider a defendant's deliberate ignorance of a probable crime as the equivalent of actual knowledge. This instruction guides the jury in determining whether the defendant acted "knowingly," a key element the government must prove.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Defendant |
The subject of the jury instruction, whose knowledge and actions are being evaluated.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | Government agency |
The prosecuting party that must prove the Defendant acted knowingly.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021-12-18
Filing of jury instructions (Document 563) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, specifically Instruction No. 39 on 'Conscious Avoidance'.
Relationships (2)
The document states the 'Government' has the burden to 'prove that the Defendant acted knowingly'.
The document instructs the jury on how to evaluate the Defendant's state of mind: 'you, the jury, may consider in deciding what the Defendant knew.'
Key Quotes (2)
"The law calls this “conscious avoidance” or “willful blindness.”"Source
— The law (as stated in the instruction)
(Defining the legal term for willfully remaining ignorant of a material fact to escape criminal consequences.)
DOJ-OGR-00008595.jpg
Quote #1
"if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was aware that there was a high probability a crime was being committed, but that the Defendant deliberately and consciously avoided confirming this fact... then you may treat this deliberate avoidance of positive knowledge as the equivalent of knowledge..."Source
— The judge (instructing the jury)
(Explaining the conditions under which the jury can equate deliberate avoidance with actual knowledge.)
DOJ-OGR-00008595.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,922 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 563 Filed 12/18/21 Page 57 of 167
OTHER INSTRUCTIONS
Instruction No. 39: Conscious Avoidance
This concludes my instructions on the crimes charged in the Indictment, but before I move onto my remaining instructions, I want to now instruct you on the concept of conscious avoidance.
As I have explained, each of the counts charged in the Indictment requires the Government to prove that the Defendant acted knowingly, as I have already defined that term.
If a person is actually aware of a fact, then she knows that fact. But, in determining whether the Defendant acted knowingly, you may also consider whether the Defendant deliberately closed her eyes to what otherwise would have been obvious.
To be clear, the necessary knowledge on the part of the Defendant with respect to any particular charge cannot be established by showing that the Defendant was careless, negligent, or foolish. However, one may not willfully and intentionally remain ignorant of a fact material and important to her conduct in order to escape the consequences of criminal law. The law calls this “conscious avoidance” or “willful blindness.”
An argument by the Government of conscious avoidance is not a substitute for proof; it is simply another factor that you, the jury, may consider in deciding what the Defendant knew.
Thus, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was aware that there was a high probability a crime was being committed, but that the Defendant deliberately and consciously avoided confirming this fact, such as by purposely closing her eyes to it or intentionally failing to investigate it, then you may treat this deliberate avoidance of positive knowledge as the equivalent of knowledge, unless you find that the Defendant actually believed that she was not engaged in such unlawful behavior. In other words, a defendant cannot avoid criminal
56
DOJ-OGR-00008595
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document