United States v. Tara Mazzeo, 592 F. App'x 559

Defendant Tara Mazzeo was convicted by a jury of two counts of making false statements to a government official under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and sentenced to five years probation (no confinement).
At trial the government relied on agents’ testimony about an unrecorded interview; the defense sought admission of an agent’s handwritten notes, which the district court excluded as having little probative value.
Mazzeo argued at trial (and on appeal preserved sufficiency claims) that the absence of a recording and the excluded notes undermined the government’s proof of the precise questions and alleged false answers.
On appeal Mazzeo also argued the district court plainly erred by failing to instruct the jury that “willfulness” requires knowledge that the statement was unlawful.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed: evidentiary exclusion for abuse of discretion; insufficiency de novo; and unpreserved jury-instruction and note-inconsistency claims for plain error.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions, holding the exclusion did not amount to reversible error, the evidence was sufficient, and any instruction error was not plain under controlling Ninth Circuit precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of agent’s handwritten notes	Gov: exclusion was proper and harmless	Mazzeo: notes were probative and should have been admitted; they contradicted trial evidence	Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; exclusion, if error, harmless given overwhelming evidence
Sufficiency of evidence (unrecorded interview)	Gov: testimony and context sufficed to prove false statements beyond reasonable doubt	Mazzeo: lack of recording and uncertainty about question wording made conviction unsupported	Affirmed — drawing all inferences for gov’t, a rational juror could convict; jury credibility determinations upheld
Jury instruction on willfulness	Gov: willfulness means deliberately and with knowledge under Ninth Circuit law	Mazzeo: should have instructed jury that willfulness requires knowledge of unlawfulness	Affirmed — no plain error; current Ninth Circuit precedent defines willfulness as deliberate and with knowledge

United States v. Evans, 728 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Pineda-Doval, 614 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2010) (constitutional error harmlessness discussion)
United States v. Gwaltney, 790 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1986) (harmless error and effect on verdict)
United States v. Cook, 489 F.2d 286 (9th Cir. 1973) (ambiguity of questions in § 1001 context)
United States v. Sainz, 772 F.2d 559 (9th Cir. 1985) (full context required in false statements cases)
United States v. Corona-Verbera, 509 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2007) (drawing inferences in favor of the government)
United States v. Mincoff, 574 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2009) (sufficiency standard for criminal conviction)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review under Rule 52(b))
Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (clarifies when error is "plain")
United States v. Tatoyan, 474 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2007) ("willfully" means deliberate and with knowledge in § 1001 cases)
Browder v. United States, 312 U.S. 335 (1941) (historic definition of willfulness)
United States v. Heuer, 4 F.3d 723 (9th Cir. 1993) (willfulness interpretation under § 1001)