DOJ-OGR-00008675.jpg
687 KB
Extraction Summary
0
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
0
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
687 KB
Summary
This document is a jury instruction (No. 39) from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. It explains the legal doctrine of "conscious avoidance" or "willful blindness," instructing the jury that a defendant's deliberate act of ignoring a high probability of criminal activity can be treated as the legal equivalent of knowledge. This allows the jury to find that the defendant acted "knowingly" even without direct proof of their awareness.
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
Mentioned as the entity required to prove that the Defendant acted knowingly and may argue the concept of conscious a...
|
Timeline (2 events)
A judge provides Instruction No. 39 to the jury regarding the legal concept of 'Conscious Avoidance'.
Key Quotes (2)
"conscious avoidance” or “willful blindness."Source
— The law
(These are the legal terms for when one willfully and intentionally remains ignorant of a fact to escape the consequences of criminal law.)
DOJ-OGR-00008675.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, 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"Source
— Judge (instructing the jury)
(This is the core instruction to the jury on how to evaluate a defendant's deliberate ignorance as a form of knowledge.)
DOJ-OGR-00008675.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,998 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 563 Filed 12/18/21 Page 137 of 167
1 OTHER INSTRUCTIONS
2 Instruction No. 39: Conscious Avoidance
3 This concludes my instructions on the crimes charged in the Indictment, but before I
4 move onto my remaining instructions, I want to now instruct you on the concept of conscious
5 avoidance.
6 As I have explained, each of the counts charged in the Indictment requires the
7 Government to prove that the Defendant acted knowingly, as I have already defined that term.
8 If a person is actually aware of a fact, then she knows that fact. But, in determining
9 whether the Defendant acted knowingly, you may also consider whether the Defendant
10 deliberately closed her eyes to what otherwise would have been obvious.
11 To be clear, the necessary knowledge on the part of the Defendant with respect to any
12 particular charge cannot be established by showing that the Defendant was careless, negligent, or
13 foolish. However, one may not willfully and intentionally remain ignorant of a fact material and
14 important to her conduct in order to escape the consequences of criminal law. The law calls this
15 “conscious avoidance” or “willful blindness.”
16 An argument by the Government of conscious avoidance is not a substitute for proof; it is
17 simply another factor that you, the jury, may consider in deciding what the Defendant knew.
18 Thus, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was aware that there was a high
19 probability a crime was being committed, but that the Defendant deliberately and consciously
20 avoided confirming this fact, such as by purposely closing her eyes to it or intentionally failing to
21 investigate it, then you may treat this deliberate avoidance of positive knowledge as the
22 equivalent of knowledge, unless you find that the Defendant actually believed that she was not
23 engaged in such unlawful behavior. In other words, a defendant cannot avoid criminal
54
DOJ-OGR-00008675
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document