United States v. Jewell

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976 · Criminal Law

532 F.2d 697 (1976)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawwillful blindnessknowinglydeliberate ignorancecontrolled substances21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 952, 960knowledge elementhigh probability

Facts

Jewell entered the United States driving a car that contained 110 pounds of marijuana hidden in a secret compartment between the trunk and rear seat. He testified that he did not know the marijuana was present. The evidence permitted the jury to infer either that he actually knew about the marijuana or that he knew of the secret compartment and facts strongly indicating it contained marijuana but deliberately avoided confirming that fact. The trial court instructed the jury that the government could satisfy the knowledge requirement by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that any lack of actual awareness was solely and entirely the result of a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth.

Issue

Whether, under federal drug statutes requiring that a defendant act "knowingly," the government must prove positive, actual knowledge that a controlled substance was present, or whether proof of deliberate ignorance can satisfy the knowledge element. More specifically, was the deliberate-ignorance instruction given here reversible error?

Rule

For offenses under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 952, and 960 that require action "knowingly," the knowledge element is satisfied not only by positive knowledge but also by proof that the defendant was aware of a high probability of the fact's existence and consciously avoided learning the truth. Deliberate ignorance and positive knowledge are equally culpable, though the doctrine is limited to cases where the defendant's ignorance is solely and entirely the result of a conscious purpose to avoid enlightenment.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In El Paso, Nina Torres agrees to drive a van to Phoenix for a man she met that morning, after he jokes that she should not ask what is in the welded metal box bolted under the cargo floor. Nina notices the box, smells a strong chemical odor, and decides not to open it because she wants to be able to deny knowing what it contains if stopped.

If Nina is prosecuted under a federal statute requiring that she act knowingly with respect to the presence of a controlled substance, which is the strongest argument for satisfying the knowledge element?

Explanation. The majority held that under statutes requiring knowing conduct, knowledge is satisfied not only by positive knowledge but also by deliberate ignorance: awareness of a high probability of the fact's existence coupled with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth. Mere failure to inspect is not enough, actual knowledge of the exact drug is unnecessary, and circumstantial evidence may establish the mental state.