reasonable doubt that (name) deliberately closed (his) (her) eyes to what would otherwise have been obvious to (him) (her). No one can avoid responsibility for a crime by deliberately ignoring what is obvious. Thus, you may find that (name) knew (state the fact or circumstance, knowledge of which is required for the offense charged) based on evidence which proves that: (1) (name) (himself) (herself) [actually,] subjectively believed that there was a high probability that this (fact) (circumstance) existed, and (2) (name) consciously took deliberate actions to avoid learning [used deliberate efforts to avoid knowing] about the existence of this (fact) (circumstance). You may not find that (name) knew (state the fact or circumstance, knowledge of which is required for the offense charged) if you find that the defendant actually believed that this (fact) (circumstance) did not exist. Also, you may not find that (name) knew (state the fact or circumstance, knowledge of which is required for the offense charged) if you find only that (name) consciously disregarded a risk that the (fact) (circumstance) existed, or that (name) should have known that the (fact) (circumstance) existed, or that a reasonable person would have known of a high probability that the (fact) (circumstance) existed. It is not enough that (name) may have been reckless or stupid or foolish, or may have acted out of inadvertence or accident. You must find that (name) (himself) (herself) [actually,] subjectively believed there was a high probability of the existence of (state the fact or circumstance, knowledge of which is required for the offense charged), consciously took
(Name) does not have the burden of proving “good faith.” Good faith is a defense because it is inconsistent with the requirement of the offense(s) charged, that (name) acted (describe the required mental state). As I have told you, it is the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the offense, including the mental state element. In deciding whether the government proved that (name) acted (describe the required mental state) or, instead, whether (name) acted in good faith, you should consider all of the evidence presented in the case that may bear on (name's) state of mind. If you find from the evidence that (name) acted in good faith, as I have defined it, or if you find for any other reason that the government has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that (name) acted (describe the required mental state), you must find (name) not guilty of the offense of (state the offense). Comment See 1A O’Malley et al, supra, § 19.06. For variations in other Circuits, see First Circuit § 5.02; Seventh Circuit §§ 6.10 & 6.11; Eighth Circuit § 9.08; Eleventh Circuit §§ 17 & 18. When is Good Faith a Defense. “Good faith” is a defense whenever the defendant’s good faith is inconsistent with a finding that the defendant acted with the mental state required by the definition of the offense charged. Good faith exculpates when, if the jury finds the defendant acted in good faith, it would necessarily have to find that defendant did not act with the required mental state. Of course, whether good faith would disprove the mental state element depends on how that element is defined with respect to the offense charged and the trial evidence about the nature of the defendant’s honest beliefs. Because good faith relates to an element of the offense, the defendant does not have the burden of persuasion, although the defendant may have the burden of production. When a good faith defense is raised and supported by some evidence, the government has the burden of disproving good faith as part of its burden of proving the mental state element. This instruction previously included, as alternative language, “[(Name) did not act in