Opinion ID: 695152
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Balancing Language

Text: 32 Williams and Ross argue that the conscious avoidance charge to the jury was fatally flawed because it failed to include balancing language. Because they failed to raise this claim at trial, we review it for plain error. See United States v. Civelli, 883 F.2d 191, 194 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 966, 110 S.Ct. 409, 107 L.Ed.2d 374 (1989). In United States v. Feroz, 848 F.2d 359, 360 (2d Cir.1988) (per curiam), we said that a conscious avoidance charge should indicate to the jury that knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is established (1) if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, (2) unless he actually believes that it does not exist. We have cautioned prosecutors in this circuit to request that the 'high probability' and 'actual belief' language be incorporated into every conscious avoidance charge. Id. at 361. 33 Here, the prosecutor requested that the actual belief language be included in the charge, but the trial court failed to comply with the request. The court, however, did include the high probability language in the charge. Moreover, the court explained that the necessary knowledge cannot be established by a showing that a defendant was careless, negligent, or foolish. While the court failed to give the preferred charge, the charge as given did not constitute plain error going to the very essence of the case. See United States v. Bradley, 812 F.2d 774, 778 (2d Cir.) (internal quotations omitted), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 832, 108 S.Ct. 107, 98 L.Ed.2d 67 (1987).