US-CA11 · jury_instructions
11th Cir. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) S8
Deliberate Ignorance as Proof of Knowledge
If a Defendant’s knowledge of a fact is an essential part of a crime, it’s
enough that the Defendant was aware of a high probability that the fact existed –
unless the Defendant actually believed the fact didn’t exist.
“Deliberate avoidance of positive knowledge” – which is the equivalent of
knowledge – occurs, for example, if a defendant possesses a package and believes
it contains a controlled substance but deliberately avoids learning that it contains
the controlled substance so he or she can deny knowledge of the package’s
contents.
So you may find that a defendant knew about the possession of a controlled
substance if you determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (1)
actually knew about the controlled substance, or (2) had every reason to know but
deliberately closed [his] [her] eyes.
But I must emphasize that negligence, carelessness, or foolishness isn’t
enough to prove that the Defendant knew about the possessi on of the controlled
substance.
Provenance
- Source
- ca11.uscourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-20
- Edition
- criminal-2025-09
- Content hash
88f325d0ad4efd8cfb907e9099da63ba0d43a604ff88a910f1258e632b67890b
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.