Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
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.