United States v. Hale and Willful Blindness

The following case considers a concepts known as "willful blindness." It is a method of proving knowledge. Usually under the MPC, to prove knowledge, the prosecutor must show the defendant knew a fact was true, or that it was practically certain to have been true. Same for result: the prosecutor must show the defendant did the conduct knowing it would result in the harm proscribed by the statute. He bombed the car knowing it would kill everyone in it.

But sometimes a defendant deliberately avoids drawing the actual, subjective conclusion that some fact is true--that a briefcase someone handed him to transport contains drugs, for example. To avoid letting defendants play games, the theory goes, courts allow prosecutors to prove knowledge by proving willful blindness, also known as deliberate avoidance. You will see the precise standard below. You will also see that courts must take care that they don't let prosecutors prove mere recklessness when the statute requires knowledge. The doctrine of willful blindness is therefore controversial as watering down the actual knowledge requirement.

Willful blindness is a jury instruction in certain cases that tells a jury they can find the statutorily required mens rea of knowledge if they find that willful blindness has been met.