United States v. Christian Gonzalez
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24901
7th Cir.2013Background
- Agents intercepted six railcars from Mexico containing marijuana bricks hidden inside "super sacks" coated in colored clay/powder and followed them to a warehouse in Chicago Heights. 8,752 kg of marijuana was recovered.
- Surveillance (wiretaps, cameras, physical surveillance) showed Quintero running the Chicago distribution, with Gonzalez participating in unloading, moving sacks, assembling cardboard boxes, and operating around a sifting device used to separate bricks from powder.
- Gonzalez called Quintero expressing suspicion about a man inspecting the sacks, helped move a sifting machine to a secluded bay when the owner appeared, and was arrested covered in red powder with the sifting device and extracted bricks present.
- In a post-arrest interview played at trial, Gonzalez admitted suspicion that the sacks contained drugs (used slang "yay" for cocaine) but said he did not definitively know and claimed he avoided confirming the contents.
- The jury convicted Gonzalez of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute >1,000 kg of marijuana but acquitted him on the possession count; the district court later granted a post-verdict judgment of acquittal for lack of proof of knowledge, prompting the government's appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Gonzalez knowingly joined conspiracy (knowledge element) | Govt: circumstantial evidence and Gonzalez's statements show he knew or strongly suspected drugs and still participated | Gonzalez: lacked actual knowledge; at most suspicious but did not have requisite guilty knowledge | Reversed district court: evidence sufficient that jury could find knowledge or deliberate avoidance; reinstate verdict |
| Appropriateness of ostrich (deliberate-avoidance) instruction | Govt: instruction proper where defendant strongly suspected contraband and took steps to avoid confirmation | Gonzalez: instruction improper because evidence insufficient to show deliberate avoidance | Court: ostrich instruction was proper given admissions and conduct; deliberate avoidance can prove knowledge |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rodriguez, 929 F.2d 1224 (7th Cir. 1991) (affirming conviction where defendant cut off normal curiosity to avoid learning he transported cocaine)
- United States v. Carrillo, 435 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2006) (deliberate avoidance is equivalent to actual knowledge for criminal liability)
- United States v. Carani, 492 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 2007) (ostrich instruction appropriate when evidence supports deliberate avoidance)
- United States v. Craig, 178 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 1999) (purpose of ostrich instruction explained and applied)
- United States v. White, 698 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence; jury verdict entitled to deference)