## Facts

- Joyce Lewis was charged and later convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud based on mortgage and home-equity loans obtained using false employment and income information.
- Lewis’s loan applications and supporting documents contained false representations about her job status and earnings.
- Lewis said she did not read the mortgage application papers submitted in her name.
- Lewis admitted she signed the mortgage paperwork in more than 25 places without reading it.
- The loan documents were prepared by Lewis’s son and his girlfriend.
- In a prior transaction, Lewis’s son obtained a home-equity loan in Lewis’s name while telling her she was only being listed as a guarantor.
- Lewis had previously received large cash gifts from one or more of her sons without any clear explanation of the source of the money beyond general gratitude.
- At trial, the district court instructed the jury that Lewis could be found guilty of the conspiracy if she “acted with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth” about a criminal objective.
- The jury found Lewis guilty, and she appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by giving a “conscious avoidance” (willful blindness) instruction that allowed the jury to find the knowledge element of the bank-fraud conspiracy if Lewis deliberately avoided learning that the loan applications were fraudulent.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed Lewis’s conviction.
- The court held the conscious-avoidance instruction was permissible on this record because Lewis claimed lack of knowledge while the evidence supported an inference that she deliberately avoided confirming the fraud.
- The court concluded the instruction did not improperly relieve the government of its burden to prove Lewis’s knowing involvement in the charged conspiracy.

## Legal Principles

- To prove conspiracy to commit bank fraud, the government must show the defendant knowingly joined an agreement to pursue an unlawful objective.
- A jury may infer knowledge through “conscious avoidance” when the evidence supports a finding that the defendant was aware of a high probability of wrongdoing and intentionally avoided confirming it.
- A conscious-avoidance instruction is generally appropriate when (1) the defendant disputes knowledge, and (2) the trial evidence permits a finding of deliberate ignorance rather than mere carelessness or mistake.
- Evidence that a defendant signed numerous loan documents without reading them, in the face of clear warning signs about the transaction’s legitimacy, can support an inference of deliberate ignorance.
- Conscious avoidance may be used to establish knowledge of the scheme’s unlawful nature; it cannot substitute for proof that the defendant intentionally joined the conspiracy.

## Conclusion

United States v. Lewis affirmed a conspiracy-to-commit-bank-fraud conviction where the trial court instructed that the jury could find the knowledge element satisfied if Lewis consciously avoided learning the truth about the fraudulent loan applications. The Second Circuit held the instruction was supported by evidence that Lewis signed extensive mortgage paperwork without reading it despite circumstances suggesting wrongdoing, and it did not eliminate the government’s duty to prove knowing participation in the conspiracy.


United States v. Lewis, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20518 (2013)