DOJ-OGR-00014628.jpg
643 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
643 KB
Summary
This legal document is a jury charge from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It instructs the jury on the concept of "conscious avoidance" or "willful blindness," explaining that if a defendant deliberately avoids confirming a high probability of criminal activity, this avoidance can be legally considered the equivalent of actual knowledge. This instruction is provided to guide the jury's deliberations, particularly concerning conspiracy counts against the defendant.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| the defendant | Defendant |
The subject of the jury charge, referred to with female pronouns ('her').
|
| the jury | Jury |
The recipient of the legal instructions ('you, the jury').
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| government | government agency |
Mentioned as the party making an argument of conscious avoidance against the defendant.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceedings.
|
| DOJ-OGR | government agency |
Appears as a prefix to the Bates number at the bottom of the page, likely indicating the Department of Justice.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-08-10
A jury charge on 'conscious avoidance' or 'willful blindness' was given as part of a criminal trial.
Relationships (1)
The document describes the 'government' making an 'argument' against 'the defendant' in a criminal proceeding.
Key Quotes (3)
"The law calls this conscious avoidance or willful blindness."Source
— The Court/The Law
(Defining the legal term for when one willfully and intentionally remains ignorant of a material fact to escape criminal consequences.)
DOJ-OGR-00014628.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 Court
(Instructing the jury on the conditions under which they can equate willful blindness with actual knowledge of a crime.)
DOJ-OGR-00014628.jpg
Quote #2
"In other words, a defendant cannot avoid criminal responsibility for her own conduct by deliberately closing her eyes or remaining purposefully ignorant of facts which would confirm to her that she was engaged in unlawful conduct."Source
— The Court
(Summarizing the principle that a defendant cannot use self-imposed ignorance as a defense.)
DOJ-OGR-00014628.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,568 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 767 Filed 08/10/22 Page 228 of 257 3062
LCKCmax9
Charge
LCKCmax9
Charge
established by a showing that the defendant was careless,
negligent, or foolish. However, one may not willfully and
intentionally remain ignorant of a material fact 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
purposefully 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 defendant actually believed that she was not engaged
in such unlawful behavior. In other words, a defendant cannot
avoid criminal responsibility for her own conduct by
deliberately closing her eyes or remaining purposefully
ignorant of facts which would confirm to her that she was
engaged in unlawful conduct.
With respect to the conspiracy counts, you must also
keep in mind that there is an important difference between
knowingly and intentionally participating in a conspiracy, on
negligent, or foolish. However, one may not willfully and
intentionally remain ignorant of a material fact 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
purposefully 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 defendant actually believed that she was not engaged
in such unlawful behavior. In other words, a defendant cannot
avoid criminal responsibility for her own conduct by
deliberately closing her eyes or remaining purposefully
ignorant of facts which would confirm to her that she was
engaged in unlawful conduct.
With respect to the conspiracy counts, you must also
keep in mind that there is an important difference between
knowingly and intentionally participating in a conspiracy, on
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014628
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document