## Facts

- David Pierotti pleaded guilty in Wisconsin state court to misdemeanor battery against his then-fiancée.
- After completing a one-year probation term, Pierotti obtained a hunting license and wanted to buy a rifle before Wisconsin’s 2012 deer-hunting season.
- Pierotti later claimed that his probation officer and a friend who was a sheriff told him he could buy a gun and hunt because his conviction was a misdemeanor rather than a felony.
- Pierotti selected a .243-caliber Remington rifle at Walmart and was directed to complete ATF Form 4473 at a computer kiosk.
- One Form 4473 question asked: “Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?”
- Pierotti initially answered “Yes,” which matched his prior battery conviction involving his fiancée.
- When he submitted the form, a pop-up window advised him to review his answers “to make any changes/corrections that may be necessary.”
- Pierotti returned to the questions, changed only the domestic-violence misdemeanor answer from “Yes” to “No,” and resubmitted the form.
- Pierotti did not click the on-screen link that provided instructions for answering the question; that link would have clarified that his prior conviction qualified as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.”
- The paper copy Pierotti signed contained the same explanatory material in small print.
- Federal prosecutors charged Pierotti with knowingly making a false statement in connection with a firearm purchase attempt, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6).
- At trial, the district court instructed the jury on “knowingly” and also gave a willful-blindness (“ostrich”) instruction stating that “knowingly” could include having a strong suspicion the statement was false and deliberately avoiding the truth, but not mere mistake, carelessness, or simple failure to make an effort to learn the truth.
- The jury convicted Pierotti. The district court sentenced him to six months’ home confinement and one year of supervised release, and Pierotti appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported giving a willful-blindness (“ostrich”) instruction on the “knowingly” element of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6).
2. Whether the ostrich instruction risked allowing conviction based on negligence or confusion rather than knowledge that the Form 4473 answer was false.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed Pierotti’s conviction.
- The court held the willful-blindness instruction was proper because the evidence permitted a finding that Pierotti suspected his “No” answer was false and intentionally avoided confirming the truth when clarification was readily available.
- The court concluded the instruction, as given, did not reduce the mens rea requirement because it expressly excluded conviction based on mistake or carelessness.

## Legal Principles

- A willful-blindness (“ostrich”) instruction may be given when the evidence supports an inference that the defendant (1) was aware of a high probability that a fact was true (or that a statement was false) and (2) deliberately avoided confirming it.
- In a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), the government may prove the “knowingly” element through willful blindness when the defendant’s conduct shows deliberate avoidance rather than mere misunderstanding.
- The instruction must make clear that negligence, mistake, carelessness, or an ordinary failure to investigate is not enough; the jury must find deliberate avoidance tied to a suspected falsity.
- Evidence that a defendant first answered a disqualifying-status question correctly, then changed only that answer while bypassing an easy-to-access explanation, can support a willful-blindness theory.
- Reliance on informal advice from others does not bar an ostrich instruction when the defendant has an immediate and simple means to verify the legal meaning of the question being answered.

## Conclusion

United States v. Pierotti holds that a district court may instruct a jury on willful blindness in a § 922(a)(6) case when the record supports a finding that the defendant suspected his Form 4473 response was false and intentionally avoided confirming that suspicion. Because Pierotti initially answered “Yes” to the domestic-violence misdemeanor question, then changed only that answer to “No” after a review prompt and declined to consult the readily available instructions that would have confirmed his disqualification, the Seventh Circuit affirmed his conviction and ruled that the ostrich instruction—properly limited to exclude mistake or carelessness—did not dilute the statute’s knowledge requirement.


United States v. Pierotti, 777 F.3d 917 (2015)