United States Ninth Circuit

The circuit court revisits and declines to overturn US v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1976), which held that "'[K]nowingly' in criminal statutes is not limited to positive knowledge, but includes the state of mind of one who does not possess positive knowledge only because he consciously avoided it." Further, district judges are owed the usual degree of deference in deciding when a deliberate ignorance instruction is warranted.

Appellate Information

• Argued 12/12/2006
• Decided 04/02/2007
• Published 04/02/2007

Judges

• Before MARY M. SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HARRY PREGERSON, ALEX KOZINSKI, PAMELA ANN RYMER, ANDREW J. KLEINFELD, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, SIDNEY R. THOMAS, BARRY G. SILVERMAN, SUSAN P. GRABER, M. MARGARET McKEOWN, RICHARD A. PAEZ, RICHARD C. TALLMAN, RICHARD R. CLIFTON, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN and CARLOS T. BEA, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Wanda K. Day, Tucson, AZ;  Jeffrey T. Green, Eric A. Shumsky, Eamon P. Joyce and Matthew J. Warren, Sidley Austin, LLP, Washington D.C., for the defendant-appellant., Paul K. Charlton, United States Attorney for the District of Arizona;  Christina M. Cabanillas, George Ferko and Bruce M. Ferg, Assistant United States Attorneys, Tucson, AZ, for the plaintiff-appellee., Kenneth W. Starr, Michael D. Shumsky and Gregory L. Skidmore, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Washington, D.C.;  Sheryl Gordon McCloud, Law Offices of Sheryl Gordon McCloud, Seattle, WA, for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as amicus curiae in support of the defendant-appellant., Saji Vettiyil, Vettiyil & Associates, P.C., Nogales, AZ, for Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, as amicus curiae in support of the defendant-appellant.