United States v. Pierott

777 F.3d 917 (7th Cir. 2015)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D pleaded no contest in Wisconsin to the crime of battery upon a woman who was his fiancée at the time. This was a misdemeanor offense. A year later, D decided that he wanted to hunt for deer during the upcoming fall season. He obtained a rifle hunting license at a local sporting goods store. A local sheriff, also a friend of D, informed D that he was good to go as his conviction was for a misdemeanor, not a felony. This advice was incorrect. The sheriff advised him to ask his probation officer as well. D did so and received the same answer. D visited Walmart, selected a rifle, and spoke to a clerk about buying it. The clerk instructed Pierotti to fill out ATF Form 4473 at a computer kiosk in the store. A question asked: 'Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?' Pierotti clicked 'Yes.' D submitted the form; a pop-up window then appeared. It said, 'We recommend reviewing Section A at this time to make any changes/corrections that may be necessary.' D went back through his answers and changed only one--his response to the domestic violence question. D did not click on a blue link (labeled 'Click to See Instructions for Question 11.i') below question 11-i before doing so. If he had, a long definition of 'misdemeanor crime of domestic violence' would have appeared in a sidebar on the side of the screen. The text in the sidebar would have shown clearly that D's prior conviction was a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The same information was available on the paper copy of the form, which D signed. D was indicted for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). The court prepared an instruction telling the jury that: A person acts knowingly if he realizes what he is doing and is aware of the nature of his conduct, and does not act through ignorance, mistake, or accident. In deciding whether the defendant acted knowingly, [you may consider all of the evidence, including what the defendant did or said. P contended that the court should also include an ostrich instruction, which amplifies the definition of 'knowingly.' The district court added the following: You may find that the defendant acted knowingly if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that he had a strong suspicion that the statement he made was false and that he deliberately avoided the truth. You may not find that the defendant acted knowingly if he was merely mistaken or careless in not discovering the truth, or if he failed to make an effort to discover the truth. D introduced substantial evidence at the trial that his incorrect answer to question 11-i was, at worst, mistaken, careless, or the result of insufficient diligence. D was convicted and appealed.