Opinion ID: 3003270
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Refusing to Include Negligence Language

Text: Ramirez argues that the district court compounded its error in giving the ostrich instruction by failing to instruct the jury that mere negligence in discovering the truth was not sufficient to infer knowledge. Along those lines, she contends that the government suggested that the jury could find deliberate avoidance because a reasonable person in her position would have inquired further and discovered the truth. We have cautioned that “a jury must not be invited to infer that a particular defendant deliberately avoided knowledge on the basis of evidence that only supports the inference that a reasonable person in the situation would have deliberately avoided knowledge.” Carrillo, 435 F.3d at 782. In arguing that the government invited the jury to do that here, Ramirez first points to a single sentence in the government’s closing argument: “Remember, there are so many red flags in each of these transactions that there’s a high risk that an honest real estate broker, one who isn’t intent on defrauding, will catch onto the scam, will turn Uribe in.” We are not persuaded that this sentence has the effect that Ramirez attributes to it. There is little risk that this single line from the government’s closing argument led the jury to find that Ramirez deliberately avoided knowledge because a reasonable broker would have inquired further and discovered the fraud. The context of this sentence seems to dispel any notion of juror confusion. The government was ex- plaining why Uribe needed to enlist a real estate agent who was in on the fraudulent scheme—someone he could trust would not turn him in to authorities. No. 08-3216 29 Furthermore, the government repeatedly stated in its closing argument that it had to prove that Ramirez acted knowingly or with knowledge. The Assistant U.S. Attorney accurately quoted the jury instruction on the elements of wire fraud that the jury was to receive immediately following the arguments, including “that the defendant knowingly devised or participated in the scheme to defraud, as described in the indictment” and “did so knowingly and with the intent to defraud.” She added that “this case boils down to a single issue: Did Beatriz Ramirez knowingly participate in a scheme to fraudulently obtain mortgages?” The prosecutor reiterated that “the government must prove that the defendant knowingly participated . . . in a scheme to defraud.” Moreover, government counsel accurately explained that “knowingly” as used in the instructions the court was to give to the jury meant “that the defendant realized what he or she was doing, was aware of the nature of his or her conduct, [and] did not act through ignorance, mistake or accident.” The government’s closing argument did not suggest that the jury could convict Ramirez because of her failure to do what a reasonable person in her situation would have done. Nor did the government’s closing suggest that a guilty finding could be based on mere negligence. Ramirez also argues that the government used Roberts’ testimony to suggest that a reasonable broker would have seen the red flags in the transactions involving Uribe and inquired further. The government responds that it pointed to Roberts’ testimony as evidence that Ramirez, who knew much more about the suspicious circum- 30 No. 08-3216 stances than Roberts did, actually knew of the fraud, not that Ramirez should have known about it. We have found that an ostrich instruction was appropriately given under similar circumstances. See United States v. Leahy, 464 F.3d 773, 796-97 (7th Cir. 2006) (contrasting defendant’s claimed ignorance despite years of involvement with suspicious workers compensation insurance accounts with the reaction of a coworker, who immediately realized that the accounts were based on inaccurate employee job classifications), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 46 (2007). Roberts was somewhat alarmed after fielding a few phone calls for Ramirez while she was on vacation and briefly reviewing her files. Though Ramirez did not have the same level of experience as Roberts, Ramirez was deeply involved with the suspicious files and related transactions. They were her ticket to success. As for the district court’s refusal to instruct the jury that mere negligence in not discovering the truth could not be equated with knowledge, Ramirez contends that such language was supported by the evidence that she was a relatively new and inexperienced real estate agent and that she was trusting.3 A variation provided by the Seventh Circuit pattern ostrich instruction indicates that “mere negligence” language should be included when 3 In her brief Ramirez asserts that Roberts opined that she was trusting and naive. Actually, Ramirez’s attorney said during a sidebar that Roberts would testify that Ramirez was naive and trusting. Roberts testified, however, that Ramirez was trusting and caring. We also note that Ramirez did not argue a negligence theory to the jury; her theory of defense was simply that she lacked guilty knowledge. No. 08-3216 31 appropriate in a given case. Federal Criminal Jury Instructions of the Seventh Circuit 4.06 (1999) (“You may not conclude that the defendant had knowledge if he/she was merely negligent in not discovering the truth.”). The district court’s ostrich instruction did not include such language. It seems unlikely that the jury could have found Ramirez guilty based on mere negligence, given the instructions as a whole made it clear that the government had to prove that she knowingly participated in the fraudulent scheme. See Carrillo, 269 F.3d at 770 (concluding it unlikely that the jury convicted the defendants based only on negligence given the instructions that “[a] defendant’s presence at the scene of a crime and knowledge that a crime is being committed is not alone sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt” and “[a] defendant’s association with conspirators . . . is not sufficient to prove his participation or membership in a conspiracy”); Paiz, 905 F.2d at 1022-23 (concluding ostrich instruction’s effect was neutralized by other instructions including a “mere presence” instruction which “negate[d] any chance that the jury would convict . . . on any finding other than” knowing participation in the conspiracy). And, we add that we disagree that there was any evidence that Ramirez was merely negligent. She either knew or she actively and deliberately avoided learning the truth. Moreover, the government did not argue that Ramirez was guilty because she was negligent, or otherwise failed to do what a reasonable real estate agent would have done. 32 No. 08-3216 And other instructions cannot be disregarded. As noted, we consider not only the ostrich instruction but all of the instructions as a whole to determine if they adequately and correctly informed the jury of the applicable law. See, e.g., United States v. DiSantis, 565 F.3d 354, 359 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Curry, 538 F.3d 718, 731 (7th Cir. 2008). The district court gave several other instructions regarding knowledge and intent: A scheme is a plan or course of action formed with the intent to accomplish some purpose. . . . A scheme to defraud is a scheme that is intended to deceive or cheat another and to obtain money or property or cause the loss of money or property to another. The phrase “intent to defraud” means that the acts charged were done knowingly, with the intent to deceive or cheat the victim in order to cause gain of money or property to the defendant or loss of money or property to another. The court further instructed that: Any person who knowingly aids, counsels, commands, or induces or procures the com- mission of an offense may be found guilty of that offense. A person must knowingly associate with the criminal activity, participate in the activity and try to make it succeed. If the defendant knowingly causes the acts of another, the defendant is responsible for those acts as though she personally committed them. No. 08-3216 33 ... If a defendant performs acts that advance a criminal activity, but had no knowledge that a crime was being committed or was about to be committed, those acts alone are not sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt. This last instruction is analogous to the “mere presence” instruction discussed in Carrillo, 269 F.3d at 770, and Paiz, 905 F.2d at 1022-23. These instructions advised the jury that it had to find that Ramirez acted knowingly in order to be guilty. When we look to the instructions as a whole, we conclude that the jury was appropriately instructed that it could not convict absent a finding that Ramirez acted “knowingly.” The absence of the “mere negligence” variation of the ostrich instruction does not seem to us to have been an error in this case.