Opinion ID: 2718613
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Salinas’ Trial

Text: The government presented several witnesses at trial, including DEA Special Agent Charles Baumgartner (“Baum‐ gartner”), who was qualified as an expert witness. He testified about the methods used by drug traffickers to conceal money, including using hidden compartments and packaging the money in tape‐wrapped, heat‐sealed bundles. He also noted that lead‐lined compartments, like the two Salinas had built in his trailer, are often used by drug traffickers to conceal their contents from law enforcement since X‐ray machines cannot penetrate them. He testified that the bundles of money taken from Salinas’ trailer were consistent with the way drug proceeds are bundled. 8 Nos. 12‐3769 & 13‐1378 After the government rested its case, Salinas moved for judgment of acquittal. He claimed that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he either knew that the conspiracy involved illegal drugs or that he deliberately avoided learning that the money he transported was connected to illegal drugs. In response to Salinas’ motion, the government highlighted the evidence that would allow the jury to reason‐ ably conclude that Salinas either knew that the money was connected to illegal drugs or that he deliberately avoided learning the truth about the origin of the money. The govern‐ ment pointed to the wiretapped conversation between Salinas and Villa, Salinas’ collection and transportation of the money, his surreptitious interactions with Armando, his efforts to con‐ ceal the uniquely‐packaged money in his trailer, and his initial denials that he had over $10,000 in his tractor‐trailer followed by his admission he was in fact carrying $311,000. Moreover, even after the police discovered the hidden money, Salinas lied that the money was actually his life savings and filed a Notice of Claim form in an attempt to recover the money as his own. Based on this evidence, the court concluded that a jury could find every element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and so denied Salinas’ motion for judgment of acquittal. Towards the end of trial, the parties agreed on a set of jury instructions. One of the government’s proposed instructions taken from the Pattern Criminal Federal Jury Instructions for the Seventh Circuit (1999), commonly referred to as the “ostrich instruction,” stated: When the word “knowingly” or the phrase “the defen‐ dant knew” is used in these instructions, it means that the defendant realized what he was doing and was Nos. 12‐3769 & 13‐1378 9 aware of the nature of his conduct, and did not act through ignorance, mistake or accident. Knowledge may be proved by a defendant’s conduct, and by all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. You may infer knowledge from a combination of suspicion and indifference to the truth. If you find that a person had a strong suspicion that things were not what they seemed or that someone had withheld some important facts, yet shut his eyes for fear of what he would learn, you may conclude that he acted knowingly, as I have used that word. Salinas did not object to the use of this instruction. The jury found Salinas guilty on all counts. Following trial, Salinas filed a motion for a new trial, but the court denied his motion. He now appeals his sentence, claiming both that the evidence presented by the government at trial was insufficient to convict him and that the ostrich instruction given at his trial was prejudicial.