## Facts

- Carmen Denise Heredia drove from Nogales to Tucson, Arizona, with her two children, her mother, and an aunt as passengers.
- At an inland Border Patrol checkpoint, an agent noticed a strong perfume-like odor from the vehicle.
- A search of the trunk revealed about 349.2 pounds of marijuana, surrounded by dryer sheets apparently used to mask odor.
- Heredia testified she borrowed the car from her aunt after her mother’s dental appointment and noticed a detergent smell; her aunt attributed it to spilled fabric softener, which Heredia found not credible.
- Heredia observed her mother was visibly nervous and carrying a large amount of cash despite being unemployed.
- Heredia admitted she suspected there might be drugs in the car, but claimed the suspicion arose only after passing the last exit before the checkpoint and that stopping to inspect would have been too dangerous.
- Heredia was charged with possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported giving a deliberate ignorance (willful blindness) instruction permitting the jury to infer knowledge from awareness of a high probability and deliberate avoidance of confirming the fact.
2. Whether the willful blindness instruction impermissibly diluted the knowledge mens rea by allowing conviction based on negligence or recklessness, or by requiring proof of motive.

## Decision

- The en banc Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held a willful blindness instruction is proper when evidence permits finding the defendant was aware of a high probability of the illegal fact and deliberately avoided learning the truth.
- The court ruled the instruction, as given, did not allow conviction on negligence or recklessness and did not add motive as an element.
- The court found sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could conclude Heredia deliberately avoided confirming her suspicions before reaching the checkpoint.

## Legal Principles

- Willful blindness may satisfy a knowledge requirement when the defendant (1) was aware of a high probability that the fact existed and (2) deliberately avoided learning the truth.
- Willful blindness is categorically distinct from negligence (should have suspected but did not) and recklessness (conscious disregard of a substantial risk); it requires deliberate actions to avoid confirmation.
- A willful blindness instruction must be framed to prevent conviction based on mere carelessness or failure to inquire.
- Motive for avoiding knowledge is not an element; the focus is on deliberate avoidance in the face of a perceived high probability.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld the use of a willful blindness instruction and affirmed Heredia’s drug-trafficking conviction because the evidence supported a finding that she recognized a high probability the car contained drugs and deliberately avoided confirming that suspicion, without reducing the required mens rea to negligence or recklessness.


United States v. Heredia, 483 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc)