U.S. v. Tantchev

In prosecution on charge of exporting stolen cars and structuring financial transactions to avoid federal reporting requirements stemming from defendant’s shipments of containers of stolen cars where said containers had been packed by his customers, Dist. Ct. did not err in giving jury ostrich instruction that had been requested by govt. Defendant argued at trial that he did not know that he was exporting stolen cars, and that he had not looked into containers prior to shipping them, and Dist. Ct. could properly find that ostrich instruction was proper, where: (1) given his years of experience on shipping industry, defendant had cut off his normal curiosity by never looking into said containers; and (2) jury could find that defendant purposely did not subject containers to normal scrutiny and draw negative inference from his change in behavior. Also, although prosecutor misstated during closing arguments that employees at bank had been terminated for malfeasance, said misstatement did not entitle defendant to new trial, where: (1) Dist. Ct. gave jury curative instruction; (2) prosecutor’s comment suggesting that defendant had help at bank when committing crime was not crucial to case; and (3) evidence of defendant’s guilt on charged offenses was strong.