7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 39 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Arthur C. Bieganowski, M.D., Richard J. Goldberg, C.P.A., Gustavo Diaz, and Jesse Jaime Lopez.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Arthur C. Bieganowski, M.D., Richard J. Goldberg, C.P.A., Gustavo Diaz, and Jesse Jaime Lopez Anchor | green | “in a multiple-defendant case where only some of the defendants justify a deliberate ignorance charge, singling out the defendant who merits the instruction, based, perhaps, on disputed or equivocal evidence, may be unfairly prejudicial to that defendant.” | 7 |
| 2 | United States v. Delgado | green | “exercised management responsibility over the property, assets, or activities of a criminal organization.” | 7 |
| 3 | United States v. Manuel Frderico Madrid | green | “admission of such evidence is a matter within the broad discretion of the trial court and is proper, where, as here, it is introduced not to show a propensity to commit crime but to show knowledge.” | 5 |
| 4 | United States v. James Thomas Doucette, III | green | “the personnel file was crucial to the government's case because it was the only evidence that ramos had knowledge of medicare and hippa regulations.” | 5 |
| 5 | United States v. Jones | green | “inform the jury that it may consider evidence of the defendant's charade of ignorance as circumstantial proof of guilty knowledge.” | 5 |
| 6 | United States v. Jones | green | “instruction is proper where the evidence shows (1) subjective awareness of a high probability of the existence of illegal conduct, and (2) purposeful contrivance to avoid learning of the illegal conduct.” | 5 |
| 7 | United States v. William T. Scott Linda D. Scott Ralph Ben-Schoter | green | “defendant claims a lack of guilty knowledge and the proof at trial supports a reasonable inference of deliberate ignorance.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.