Opinion ID: 772927
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court's Conscious Avoidance Instruction

Text: 12 Sogomonian argues that his conviction should be overturned based on the conscious avoidance instruction included in the jury charge. We review this claim under a plain error standard because Sogomonian did not object to the conscious avoidance charge at trial. A finding of plain error requires this Court to rule that the district court made a mistake that is clear and obvious, affected substantial rights, and seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 469 (1997); see alsoUnited States v. Martinez Rios, 143 F.3d 662, 676 (2d Cir. 1998). Although the government concedes that it was a mistake to include the conscious avoidance language in the jury charge, Sogomonian does not make the necessary showing that his substantial rights were affected. He only makes allegations of jury confusion, and therefore, we hold that the district court's mistake does not rise to the level of plain error. 13