Case Name: United States v. Jewell
Citation: 532 F.2d 697 (1976)
Facts: Jewell was convicted of knowingly transporting marijuana in his car from Mexico. The pot was hidden in a secret compartment behind the rear seat. There was evidence that Jewell deliberately avoided positive knowledge in order to avoid responsibility (“Willful Blindness”). The trial court judge gave a jury instruction that defendant is guilty if the government shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that (even though he was not actually aware) his ignorance was solely because he made a conscious purpose to disregard what was in the vehicle to avoid learning the truth.
Defendant’s argument: The state needs to prove that Jewell knowingly brought and possessed the marijuana into the US. The MPC requires the state to prove that the defendant is “aware of a high probability of its existence.”
State’s argument: Jewell interprets “knowingly” to narrow and is not consistent with the purpose of the Drug Control Act. A narrow interpretation would allow deliberate ignorance as a defense.
Holding: Upheld the judge’s instruction and the defendant’s conviction.
Dissent: Three errors in the jury instruction:
- The MPC gives a definition of knowledge not an alternative for it (mentions a gift to child)
- Did not alert the jury that he could not be convicted if he “actually believed” there was no controlled substance in the car
- The instruction clearly stated that the defendant could have been convicted even if found ignorant or “not actually aware” that the car contained a controlled substance