9th Circuit reconsiders ruling, affirms conviction of ‘ice’ shipment defendant

In reconsidering its previous ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction of a man who was sentenced to 63 months in prison for his role in the shipment of 4.9 lbs of methamphetamine or “ice” to the CNMI in 2015.

The Ninth Circuit judges ruled last Saturday that U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona did not abuse her discretion by instructing the jury on deliberate ignorance in the case of Zhaopeng Chen.

The judges—Mary M. Schroeder, Eugene E. Siler, and Mary H. Murguia—said they reviewed Manglona’s decision to give a deliberate ignorance instruction for any abuse of discretion, and, in determining the applicability of the jury instruction, they must take the evidence in the light most favorable to the the U.S. government.

They said Manglona’s instruction correctly explained the two requirements the jury would have to find. They determined that the evidence “viewed in the most favorable light to the government supported the instruction.”

When the case was still on trial, Manglona instructed the jury that the court could find that Chen acted knowingly if it found “beyond a reasonable doubt” that [Chen] was aware of a high probability that drugs were being picked up from the Sunleader warehouse, and [Chen] deliberately avoided learning the truth.”

The judges said despite participating in activities highly indicative of drug dealing, Chen never asked the co-conspirators any questions.

“Under the totality of these circumstances, a jury could reasonably conclude that Chen’s failure to inquire or investigate constitutes deliberate ignorance,” the judges said.

Chen’s co-conspirators,Xi Huang and Shicheng Cai, have both pleaded guilty.

The other issue presented before the 9th Circuit was Manglona’s denial of Chen’s request for judgment of acquittal at the close of the government’s case in chief.

The 9th Circuit judges said they reviewed the constitutional sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction by “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution” and determining whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Here, the judges said, the essential elements of conspiracy are “an agreement to accomplish an illegal objective and the intent to commit the underlying offense.”