United States v. Roberto Macias
786 F.3d 1060
7th Cir.2015Background
- Defendant Macias was convicted of conspiracy to distribute ≥5 kg cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 846) and conducting an unlicensed money-transmitting business (18 U.S.C. § 1960); appeal challenges only the conspiracy conviction and jury instruction.
- Judge gave the Seventh Circuit Pattern jury "deliberate indifference" (ostrich/willful blindness) instruction permitting conviction if defendant "had a strong suspicion" and "deliberately avoided the truth," but also told jurors he could not be convicted for mere carelessness or failure to make an effort to discover the truth.
- Macias had prior experience smuggling people, later ran a legitimate bus company, and was recruited in 2007 to move cash to Mexico; he testified he believed the money was proceeds of human smuggling, not drugs, and never asked what was being smuggled.
- Government presented an expert who testified the amounts moved exceeded typical human-smuggling proceeds, which could support an inference of knowledge, but no direct evidence that Macias took steps to avoid confirming a drug-related suspicion.
- Court determined an ostrich instruction is proper only when evidence shows deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high-probability suspicion; here the evidence did not show such active avoidance.
- Result: conspiracy conviction and sentence reversed and remanded for new trial; money-transmitting conviction stands but its sentence is vacated pending further district-court proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the "ostrich" (deliberate-indifference/willful blindness) instruction was proper | Instruction justified because expert evidence showed sums were inconsistent with human smuggling, supporting inference Macias strongly suspected drug proceeds and avoided confirming it | No evidence Macias took deliberate steps to avoid learning the truth; at most he was merely negligent or mistaken | Reversed: instruction improper absent evidence of deliberate actions to avoid learning the truth (willful blindness requires active avoidance) |
| Proper standard for willful blindness/ostrich instruction | Government urged psychological avoidance (shutting off curiosity) as sufficient | Defendant argued failure to ask, without more, is not active avoidance | Court adopts Global-Tech standard: must believe high probability and take deliberate actions to avoid learning the fact; mere failure to inquire is insufficient |
| Harmless-error assessment of the instructional error | Government asserted substantial evidence of actual knowledge made any error harmless | Defendant argued evidence was not overwhelming; the instruction could have led to conviction based on mere lack of curiosity | Not harmless; evidence was sufficient but not overwhelming—instruction could have caused wrongful conviction; government offered no substantiated harmlessness showing |
| Sentencing consequence re: money-transmitting conviction | Government sought to leave concurrent sentence undisturbed | Defense noted guideline range for money-transmitting offense changed if conspiracy conviction vacated | Court upheld conviction but vacated the money-transmitting sentence pending further district-court proceedings to correct guideline calculation |
Key Cases Cited
- Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 131 S. Ct. 2060 (2011) (willful blindness requires belief in high probability plus deliberate actions to avoid learning the fact)
- United States v. Giovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223 (7th Cir. 1990) (ostrich instruction appropriate where defendant takes steps to insulate himself from actual knowledge)
- United States v. Salinas, 763 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 2014) (applies Global-Tech definition of willful blindness in circuit jurisprudence)
- United States v. Diaz, 864 F.2d 544 (7th Cir. 1988) (example where ostrich instruction was proper because defendant insulated himself from the transaction)
- United States v. Ramsey, 785 F.2d 184 (7th Cir. 1986) (earlier criticism of prior ostrich instruction formulations)