Opinion ID: 3155932
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Eric Gardner/Jerald Law Passport (Count 4)

Text: Churchwell also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence surrounding the Gardner/Law passport. The Government has established the substantive offense of making a false statement on the Gardner/Law passport application. See 18 U.S.C. § 1542. We must now address whether Churchwell aided and abetted the commission of this act. “[K]nowingly associat[ing] . . . with and participat[ing] in [a] criminal venture” is sufficient to find criminal liability. See 18 U.S.C. § 2; Burgos, 94 F.3d at 873. This court has expanded the definition of knowledge to include circumstances where a defendant exhibits deliberate ignorance. See United States v. Demmitt, 706 F.3d 665, 674–77 (5th Cir. 2013). Deliberate ignorance requires that a defendant (1) be subjectively aware of a high probability of the existence of the illegal conduct; and (2) purposely contrive to avoid learning of the illegal conduct. Id. at 675. In Demmitt, we concluded that a deliberate ignorance instruction to the jury was proper where the defendant turned a blind eye to several instances of suspicious conduct in a fraud conspiracy: clients directly informed the defendant of missing money from their accounts; the defendant was copied on letters sent to clients about incorrect charges on accounts; the defendant tightly controlled the business by making various business decisions; and the defendant took no actions to investigate or rectify the fraud. Id. at 673–74, 676; see also United States v. Barrera, 444 F. App’x 16, 21–23 (5th Cir. 2011) (allowing the inference that a government agent who prepared falsified documents for a government agency and made no effort to verify their truth 9 Case: 14-20351 Document: 00513277044 Page: 10 Date Filed: 11/18/2015 No. 14-20351 purposefully “hid her head in the sand” and was subjectively aware of the probability of illegal conduct). Churchwell’s impropriety is clear with regard to the Gardner/Law passport application. He again points out that he did not knowingly and willfully participate in including Law’s false identification information on the application because he did not know that Gardner was not Law. He maintains that his “negligence” in accepting the handwritten paper with the identification number on it was not sufficient to show that he willfully and knowingly made a false statement. The Government, on the other hand, asserts that the conviction may be upheld in light of Churchwell’s deliberate ignorance because Churchwell “deliberately blinded himself to Gardner’s true identity when he accepted proof of identification from a torn piece of paper with no photograph.” Churchwell relies on a proposition from United States v. Gabriner: the absence of evidence showing that a defendant knew that a passport applicant provided false information is fatal to a prosecution for his knowing participation in the inclusion of false statements on the passport application. 571 F.2d 48, 49–51 (1st Cir. 1978). However, Churchwell’s conduct clearly shows a subjective awareness of a high probability of the fraud and that he purposely contrived to avoid learning of the illegal conduct. Churchwell had an ongoing relationship with co-defendant Russell, having met Russell shortly after 1998. Churchwell exchanged multiple telephone calls with both Brown and Russell and had previously assisted Russell in getting another passport. Churchwell accepted proof of identification from a torn piece of paper with no photograph from an applicant whom Russell told Churchwell about and whom Brown brought to the passport agency. Finally, Churchwell independently placed information on the application that was not provided by the applicant. 10 Case: 14-20351 Document: 00513277044 Page: 11 Date Filed: 11/18/2015 No. 14-20351 Each additional interaction amplifies the link between Churchwell and his knowledge of the fraud. Churchwell’s participation in multiple passport application transactions over the years also indicates a subjective awareness of fraud. He served in a managerial role that would expose him to several fraudulent acts, was aware of the office requirements, and was aware of several suspicious factors. 11 Churchwell’s experience and knowledge of the passport regulations indicate that he deliberately chose not to investigate whether Gardner was in fact Law. Under the circumstances, the record suggests that there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that Churchwell had knowledge of Gardner’s intention to obtain a passport using false information and that Churchwell deliberately blinded himself to the fraud therein.