I got the fact pattern from Dressler's Understanding Criminal Law, who says it is possible that you may be guilty if you should have known, whether you actually knew or not. So take this up with Dressler and the cases he sites. I would have to dig through the book to find the actual quotes.....
On 5/5/06, andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Typical Criminal Law Fact Pattern:
> > Woj, if you accept a package at your door from UPS,
> > and unbeknownst to you
> > that package contains drugs which are going to be
> > sold by someone who lives
> > in your house, (son, roommate, wife) are you guilty
> > of drug distribution.
> > Well, you might not know what is in the package but
> > it is still possible for
> > you to go to jail for 20 years in some
> > jurisdictions, if it is concluded
> > that you should have known what was in the package.
>
> No, all drug laws that I am aware of require intention
> or knowledge. (In fact what laws call mens rea,
> culpable mental state, is required for almost all
> crimes; strict liability crimes are few and far
> between).
>
> If you really don't know what is in the package you
> are not guilty of posssession with intent to
> distribute or the equivalent. Nor can the mental state
> requirement be satisfied even if you should have
> known. The requirement is that you know what's in the
> package.
>
> The only exception to this rule that I know of in
> federal law is what is called "willfull blindness,"
> where deliberately avoiding knowledge that you should
> have had is treated as equivalent to knowledge, like I
> case I was involved in once where a guy was selling
> fake Michael Jordan-signed memorabilia, and there was
> so much stuff involved that if Jordan had signed all
> that crap he would not have had time to play
> basketball.
>
> You will say -- every nonlawyer does (I forget whether
> you are a lawyer) -- you can't _show_ what's in
> people's minds. Of course you can. That's what lawyers
> do all the time. It's our job. You assemble evidence
> and make a case. Or you don't make a case, and then
> the defendant is acquitted or found not liable. That
> doesn't mean there aren't errors.
>
> > It is also possible to
> > convict you of being part of a criminal conspiracy
> > on these facts.
>
> For conspiracy you need agreement to commit an
> unlawful act, which implies knowledge or intention to
> commit it. Accepting a package without knowing that it
> contains drugs would not qualify unless you were
> wilfully blind.
>
> If that
> > criminal conspiracy had been involved in violence
> > then for accepting that
> > package at the door you are by definition a violent
> > criminal.
> >
>
> Well, if you're in the Soprano family, and you agree
> to a hit to be committed by Silvio (say), and in some
> cases (not drug crimes in federal law) take a
> signifigent step towards furthering the aim of the
> conspiracy, such as supplying the gun or something
> like that, then you have conspired to commit murder, right?
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/
His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/
Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20060505/fbf7de57/attachment.htm>