United States v. Ford, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6712

Search of the Ford home in Maine (Nov. 15, 2011) uncovered a large indoor marijuana grow, dismantled semi‑automatic rifles, firearm parts, and a video of James firing a rifle while Darlene narrated. Four family members were indicted; Darlene was tried separately.
Darlene was convicted at a second trial of (1) conspiracy to manufacture 100+ marijuana plants, (2) maintaining a drug‑involved residence, and (3) aiding and abetting a felon (James) in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)). She was sentenced to 78 months on each count, concurrent.
The aiding‑and‑abetting count turned on whether Darlene knew (or had reason to know) that James previously had been convicted of crimes punishable by more than one year in prison—an element that makes his possession illegal under § 922(g)(1).
The government relied on circumstantial evidence (long cohabitation, joint involvement in drug activity, Darlene's purchase of the rifle James used, forfeiture of a Massachusetts house, and a witness memory placing Darlene at a 2002 search) to show knowledge; Darlene testified she did not know of James’s prior convictions.
The district court instructed the jury that it could convict if Darlene “knew or had reason to know” of James’s prior felony convictions; the First Circuit held that instruction erroneous because § 2 requires proof that the aider actually knew the facts that make the principal’s conduct criminal.

Issue	Government's Argument	Darlene's Argument	Held
Whether an aider/abetter may be convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2 for aiding a felon’s possession of a firearm on proof that she "knew or had reason to know" the principal was a felon	The government contended proof the aider "knew or had reason to know" of the principal’s felony suffices (authority: Third, Sixth, Seventh Circuits).	Darlene argued § 2 requires actual knowledge of the fact that makes the principal's conduct illegal (i.e., that he was a felon).	The court held § 2 requires proof the aider knew the facts that make the principal’s conduct criminal (actual knowledge); the "reason to know" negligence standard is insufficient.
Whether the erroneous "knew or had reason to know" instruction was harmless	Govt: circumstantial evidence was overwhelming and the error was harmless.	Darlene: testimony and evidentiary gaps raised reasonable doubt about her knowledge.	Error was not harmless; conviction on the aiding/abetting count vacated and remanded for retrial.
Whether Darlene’s remaining concurrent 78‑month sentences were substantively unreasonable	Govt/district court: sentence within Guidelines and based on her decision to testify and the absence of acceptance‑of‑responsibility; she could have pled guilty.	Darlene: she was effectively punished for going to trial and had no plea offer.	The First Circuit affirmed the sentences on the remaining counts as substantively reasonable; no abuse of discretion.

X‑Citement Video, Inc. v. United States, 513 U.S. 64 (background presumption that mens rea applies to statutory elements)
Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (presumption in favor of scienter in criminal statutes)
Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (defendant must know facts making conduct illegal; tradition of lawful gun ownership informs mens rea analysis)
Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (intent to aid/abet requires participation with knowledge of circumstances constituting the offense)
United States v. Encarnación‑Ruiz, 787 F.3d 581 (1st Cir.) (aider must know the element that turns otherwise lawful conduct into a crime)
United States v. Tarr, 589 F.2d 55 (1st Cir.) (aider liability requires knowing the facts that constitute the underlying crime)
United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671 (jurisdictional facts may not require the same scienter as substantive criminal elements)