Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. UNITED STATES v. JEWELL 532 F.2d 697...

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.All Rights Reserved.

UNITED STATES v. JEWELL 532 F.2d 697 (2d Cir. 1976)

Case Brief


UNITED STATES v. JEWELL

• PURPOSE: This case deals with problems of defining and establishing specific intent.



• CAUSE OF ACTION: Violation of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (specifically: “knowingly transporting marijuana from Mexico to the United States”).



• FACTS: Jewell was convicted in a jury trial of knowingly transporting marijuana in the trunk of his car from Mexico to the United States. The marijuana was concealed in a secret compartment behind the back seat of his car. Jewell insisted that he did not know the marijuana was in the secret compartment.



• ISSUE: Whether deliberate ignorance may constitute “knowledge” required by the statute.

• The appeal was grounded on the following instruction to the jury:



• “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.”



• HOLDING: Yes. Conviction affirmed.



• REASONING: The court used the “deliberate ignorance” test, under which positive knowledge is not required where defendant acts with an awareness of the high probability of the existence of the fact in question. Cites Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398: “Those who traffic in heroin will inevitably become aware that the product they deal with is smuggled, unless they practice a studied ignorance to which they are not entitled.”



• DISSENT: Three defects in jury instruction: • 1. First, it fails to mention the requirement that

Jewell must have been aware of a high probability that a controlled substance was in the car.

• 2. It did not alert the jury that Jewell could not be convicted if he “actually believed” there was no controlled substance in the car.

• 3. The jury instruction clearly states that Jewell could have been convicted even if found ignorant or “not actually aware” that the car contained a controlled substance.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. UNITED STATES v. JEWELL 532 F.2d 697...

Documents

Transcript of Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. UNITED STATES v. JEWELL 532 F.2d 697...