United States v. Susana Sanchez-Robles

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1909, 32 Fed. R. Serv. 673, 927 F.2d 1070 (1991)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A deliberate ignorance (Jewell) jury instruction is improper when the evidence indicates that the defendant had either actual knowledge of illegal activity or no knowledge at all, lacking a middle ground where the defendant suspected a high probability of illegality but intentionally avoided confirming it.

Facts:

Sanchez-Robles borrowed a van from an acquaintance named Lopez to drive her four daughters to Mexico for dinner.
Upon returning to the U.S. port of entry late at night, a customs official heard Sanchez-Robles telling her daughters to remain quiet.
Customs inspectors detected a pungent odor emanating from the van, which they identified as marijuana.
A subsequent search revealed 43 pounds of cocaine and 417 pounds of marijuana concealed throughout the vehicle.
The odor of marijuana was so intense that officers dismantling the van required fresh air breaks.
Sanchez-Robles claimed she was unaware of the contraband and stated she did not recognize the smell of marijuana.

Procedural Posture:

The government charged Sanchez-Robles with importing and possessing cocaine and marijuana with intent to distribute.
The case proceeded to a jury trial in the United States District Court.
Sanchez-Robles moved for a judgment of acquittal based on insufficiency of evidence, which the District Court denied.
The District Court gave the jury a 'Jewell' instruction regarding deliberate ignorance of the drugs.
The jury convicted Sanchez-Robles on all counts.
Sanchez-Robles appealed the conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a deliberate ignorance jury instruction appropriate where the primary evidence of a defendant's knowledge of drug smuggling is a strong odor of marijuana inside the vehicle?

Opinions:

Majority - Rymer

No, the deliberate ignorance instruction constituted reversible error because the facts supported only a finding of actual knowledge or complete innocence, not willful blindness. The court reasoned that a Jewell instruction is designed for the specific 'middle ground' scenario where a defendant suspects a high probability of criminal activity (e.g., being paid to drive a stranger's car) and consciously avoids learning the truth. In this case, the evidence relied on the defendant's senses: either she recognized the strong odor (proving actual knowledge) or she did not (proving innocence/lack of suspicion). Because there were no external suspicious circumstances to prompt an investigation other than the smell itself, she could not have been 'deliberately ignorant.' The instruction created an impermissible risk that the jury convicted her for negligence—thinking she 'should have known'—rather than for criminal intent.

Analysis:

This case clarifies the boundaries of the 'Jewell' instruction (willful blindness) in the Ninth Circuit. It prevents the government from using this instruction as a catch-all in every case where a defendant claims lack of knowledge. The decision emphasizes that for a deliberate ignorance instruction to be valid, there must be specific evidence of a 'middle ground'—suspicious circumstances that would alert a reasonable person to illegal activity, followed by a conscious effort to avoid the truth. By ruling that sensory evidence (smell) usually proves actual knowledge or nothing at all, the court protects defendants from being convicted based on mere negligence or stupidity.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Susana Sanchez-Robles (1991)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"