Opinion ID: 2709082
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Gonzalez’s Trial

Text: After the close of all the evidence presented at trial, Gonzalez made a motion for judgment of acquittal. The court denied it, saying, I have to look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and determine whether any reasonable juror could find what it needs to find in order to convict Mr. Gonzalez. And I think it could. Number one, there’s evidence that [Gonzalez] was involved, and I won’t get into any more detail on that, in unloading and extracting the bundles. Number two, at least from his statement, if not from other things other than the statement, and I ac- knowledge that it’s subject to interpretation, but looking at it in the light most favorable to the government, which is the standard, you know, a person could conclude that either [Gonzalez] knew that [the super sacks] contained a controlled substance or that, in the words of the instruction that I’m going to give, that he believed that there was a strong probability about that and took deliberat[e] actions to avoid learning the actual truth. No. 13-1832 7 The district court gave the “ostrich instruction” to the jury over Gonzalez’s objection, explaining, “in Mr. Gonzalez’s interview there’s at least two … references where he talks about being suspicious … it’s almost a classic case for the ostrich instruction.” The court instructed the jury as follows: You may find that a defendant acted knowingly if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that he believed there was a strong probability that controlled substances were in the super sacks but took deliberate actions to avoid learning the truth. You may not find that the defendant acted knowingly if he was merely mistaken or careless in not discovering the truth, or if he failed to make an effort to discover the truth. After the case was submitted to the jury, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the conspiracy count, and not guilty on the possession count. D. Gonzalez’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal After the Jury’s Verdict After the jury’s verdict, Gonzalez moved for judgment of acquittal once again. This time, the district court granted Gonzalez’s motion for judgment of acquittal. It found that “no reasonable jury could have found that Gonzalez had the requisite knowledge” that drugs were involved. The court concluded that “taking the evidence as a whole … the government failed to prove actual knowledge” and no reasonable jury could have found evidence sufficient to support a finding of deliberate avoidance. The district court acknowledged that the “evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the government, certainly established that [Gonzalez] handled or saw 8 No. 13-1832 several of the bricks.” It also concluded that Gonzalez’s assistance in putting together cardboard boxes was “certainly evidence that he was aware that something from the super sacks was going to be boxed up and carried away,” a factor that Gonzalez admitted made him “suspicious.” However, the court found that the inferences drawn by the jury were “a stretch” and went “beyond the bounds of reasonable inference.” The government filed a timely appeal to this court.