Alternative Assignment #B

If you choose to do this alternative assignment, you will have a different reading assignment, post a different Discussion Forum topic (in the same place)and write a different Essay. Everything else about this Unit will be the same (web readings, exercises, optional outline).

Reading

Read the legal brief below, which tells of a case in which Mr. Jewell, was accused of knowingly transporting marijuana into the U.S. at the Mexican border via a secret compartment of his car. The court convicted him even though he said he didn’t know the marijuana was there. The jury concluded that if Mr. Jewell didn’t know about the marijuana it was only because he purposely made a point of not finding out. In other words, they felt he deliberately closed his eyes to the situation so that if he was arrested he could escape by claiming he didn’t positively know about the drug. The appeals court affirmed this decision. The ruling was that a defendant who, like an ostrich, merely sticks his head in the sand to avoid finding something out will not be able to avoid responsibility: "The Government can complete their burden of proof by proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that if the defendant was not actually aware that there was marijuana in the vehicle he was driving when he entered the United States his ignorance in that regard was solely and entirely a result of his having made a conscious purpose to disregard the nature of that which was in the vehicle, with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth." But a minority of judges disagreed. In their dissent (disagreement) they pointed out that this rule could let the court convict someone practicing the “ostrich maneuver” even if they really had no reason to suspect anything was wrong or strongly believed there was not. Read the legal brief below, which summarizes the case. Then turn to the Discussion Forum and Essay assignments.

United States v. Jewell

United States Court of Appeals, 9^th Circuit, 1976

Case: United States v. Jewell 532 F.2d 697 (9^th Cir. 1976)

FACTS: Jewell entered the United States driving an automobile containing 110 pounds of marijuana in a secret compartment. Jewell disclaimed knowledge of the marijuana’s existence; however, evidence suggested that if he did not have such knowledge, it was only because he deliberately avoided knowing with the purpose of evading responsibility.

HISTORY: Trial court convicted. Defendant appeals.

ISSUE: Was the trial court mistaken in instructing that Jewell’s deliberate ignorance is equivalent to positive knowledge?

RULING: No. The 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

RATIONALE: The court noted that their position was necessary to address the situation of a defendant who possesses a deliberate antisocial purpose but “deliberately shuts his eyes” to obvious circumstances. They stated that the criminal law commonly equates willful blindness with knowledge. They argued that if deliberate ignorance was allowed as a defense, everyone who traffics in drugs would escape by claiming they had no knowledge of what they were transporting.

RULE: "The Government can complete their burden of proof by proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that if the defendant was not actually aware that there was marijuana in the vehicle he was driving when he entered the United States his ignorance in that regard was solely and entirely a result of his having made a conscious purpose to disregard the nature of that which was in the vehicle, with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth."

DISSENT: According to ANTHONY M. KENNEDY, the jury should have been instructed that a conviction would require that 1) the defendant believe there was a high probability of the marijuana’s existence; and 2) he must not actually have believed that it did not exist. Additionally, the instructions should not have indicated that the defendant could have been convicted even if found ignorant or "not actually aware" of the marijuana’s existence.

DISCUSSION FORUM ASSIGNMENT

Choose one:

1. Research a news story or invent one that features facts similar to the Jewell case; i.e., a person arrested for knowingly transporting drugs where it is uncertain whether he or she really knew that drugs were being transported. Provide a summary of the story. If you research the story, give sources in MLA format so other students can look them up. If you invent a story, give LOTS of details.

2. Research a news story in which someone is convicted of a crime that includes “knowingly” in its description but is NOT drug-related. Explain briefly why you think it was or was not obvious that the defendant acted knowingly.

3. Research to find a crime that is defined with the term “knowingly.” Briefly explain why you think requiring the court to prove that a defendant acted knowingly might be problematic (invent an example).

ESSAY ASSIGNMENT

Choose one of the following and write an essay of about 1,000 words.

1. Read the case of State v. Nations in which it was found that the defendant’s failure to investigate her employed dancer’s age did not mean she knew that she was under-age. In contrast, Jewell’s failure to investigate his car for drugs was considered to be equivalent to his knowing about the drugs. Did the courts get it right, or should it be the other way around? Write an essay comparing the two cases and arguing either that 1) the outcomes are correct; or that 2) they should have declared Jewell innocent and Nations guilty?

2. Is it fair for the law to be able to decide what a defendant knew or didn’t know? Short of reading minds, how can a court decide whether a defendant “knows” he is carrying drugs? Write an essay explaining how you would decide whether an arrested drug smuggler knew about what he was carrying. You decide whether you want to talk about people arrested while in a private vehicle, using public transportation, on foot, or all of the above. Then write two or three paragraphs, each one testing part of your rule against examples that you invent to show how the rule works. Be sure to mention the Jewell case as a comparison.

3. Do research to find two or three other actions (not related to drugs) that are only considered crimes if they are done “knowingly” (i.e., “knowingly” is part of the definition of the crime). For each, write a paragraph in which you describe a case (real or invented by you) showing the problems that result by defining the crime this way. Here are some helpful hints: what if a defendant thinks he knows something but he’s wrong – did he act knowingly? What if he knew something but forgot it at some point? What if he did not know something but he really should have known? Or, as in Jewell’s case, what if he did not know but only because he made a conscious decision to not know? For each crime that you write about, find/invent a story that shows how questions like these can make a court’s decision very difficult.