Page 35 - TPA Journal May June 2021
P. 35
substances listed on the schedules The Government contends that it “provided
or that he knew the identity of the ample evidence of Crittenden’s knowledge,”
controlled substances he namely (1) testimony that Crittenden moved the
p o s s e s s e d . bags to the Byway Drive house, (2) testimony
. . . . that Crittenden retrieved a bag containing
methamphetamine on Dominguez’s request, and
The Government argues that the second element (3) some agents’ testimony that Crittenden told
was established because Mr. Crittenden had them he “thought the bags contained marijuana.”
knowledge. To support its argument, the We conclude that the district court correctly
Government specifically points to the moment in stated the relevant law and permissibly applied it
which Mr. Crittenden was questioned by to the facts of this case.
authorities and he admitted that he moved what
he believed to be marijuana. But, because the As to the governing legal principles, the district
Court finds that belief is not enough to establish court properly noted that the “knowledge
knowledge, it disagrees with the Government and requirement [of § 841(a)] may be met by
adheres to the definition laid out by the Supreme showing that the defendant knew he possessed a
Court in McFadden. In McFadden, the Supreme substance listed on the schedules.” The district
Court determined that knowledge can only be court also properly concluded that a defendant’s
established in two ways: either by knowledge mere “belief” that he possessed a controlled
that a controlled substance is listed or by substance—divorced from other factors such as
knowledge of the identity of a scheduled deliberate ignorance—“is not enough to
controlled substance. Here, neither of these establish knowledge.”
definitions was established beyond a reasonable
doubt by the Government. Any proof—direct or In some instances, the knowledge element of a
circumstantial—that was introduced during the controlled substance offense can be satisfied
first trial failed to show that Mr. Crittenden knew when a defendant knows there is a high
the contraband was comprised of any controlled probability that he possesses drugs but
substances listed on the schedules or that he deliberately endeavors to avoid confirming those
knew the identity of the controlled substances he suspicions. However, the Government has never
possessed. Mr. Crittenden never opened the bags argued deliberate ignorance in this case, and the
to see what was inside. jury was not instructed on it. We therefore
express no opinion regarding whether the
He placed the bags in several suitcases and evidence demonstrated Crittenden’s deliberate
immediately removed them to the Byway ignorance.
residence, away from his home and family. This
testimony, viewed, in the context of all of the The Government fares no better on the facts.
evidence offered during the first trial shows, at There was no evidence that the
most, that Mr. Crittenden believed the bags methamphetamine at issue belonged to
contained something illegal. More specifically, Crittenden or that Crittenden was attempting to
the testimony shows, if anything, that Mr. sell the drugs; rather, federal agents seized the
Crittenden believed the bags contained methamphetamine from Dominguez pursuant to
marijuana. The Court finds this thought or belief a transaction the confidential informant set up
insufficient to establish knowledge. with Dominguez. Although the jury originally
convicted Crittenden of conspiring with
32 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal
