United States v. Thanarat Suttiswad

Defendant Suttiswad appeals from his conviction upon a two count indictment charging him with importation of heroin from Bangkok, Thailand, and possession of heroin, with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 (a), and § 841(a)(1). Following guilty verdicts returned by a jury defendant was sentenced to two concurrent terms of five years, with a three year special parole term.

Defendant is a native of Thailand. Customs officers found 3.98 pounds of heroin concealed behind linings in his luggage during a search at San Francisco International Airport on July 11, 1981.

In this appeal, three issues are presented for review. Appellant contends that the District Court erred in failing to authorize expenditure of Criminal Justice Act funds for the services of a statistical expert for the purpose of showing that grand juries in the Northern District of California failed to include sufficient minority jurors. It is also urged that the criminal intent instructions, as given, were erroneous, and that the prosecutor committed plain error in referring to “highly incriminating evidence outside the record,” during his closing argument.

The government’s evidence may be summarized…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

I agree that the prosecution’s closing argument does not warrant a reversal and that there was no error in the refusal to authorize funds for an expert statistician. I also agree that it was appropriate under the facts of this case to give a Jewell instruction. I dissent because I believe the content of the Jewell instruction given by the district court was deficient.

The jury instructions given by the district court evidence an effort to simplify the language of instructions so as to be more understandable to the jury. This is commendable and should be strongly encouraged. In simplifying jury instructions, however, no element of an instruction may be omitted. The instruction given by the district court on deliberate ignorance, the so-called “Jewell instruction,” left out a crucial element and is therefore deficient.

The problem with the district court’s instruction is the same problem this court found in United States v. Valle-Valdez, 554 F.2d 911 (1977). In Valle-Valdez , we held that knowledge cannot be imputed merely because the defendant “acted with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth;” the jury must also find beyond a…

696 F.2d 645 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thanarat SUTTISWAD, Defendant-Appellant. No. 81-1645. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 16, 1982. Decided Nov. 1, 1982. Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied Jan. 21, 1983. 1 Barry Portman, Asst. Federal Public Defender, San Francisco, Cal., argued, for defendant-appellant; James F. Hewitt, Federal Public Defender, San Francisco, Cal., on brief. 2 Sandra L. Teters, San Francisco, Cal., argued, for plaintiff-appellee; William Farmer, Asst.U.S.Atty., San Francisco, Cal., on brief. 3 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 4 Before KILKENNY and HUG, Circuit Judges, and BROWN * , Senior District Judge. WESLEY E. BROWN, Senior District Judge: 5 Defendant Suttiswad appeals from his conviction upon a two count indictment charging him with importation of heroin from Bangkok, Thailand, and possession of heroin, with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 952 (a), and Sec. 841(a)(1). Following guilty verdicts returned by a jury defendant was sentenced to two concurrent terms of five years, with a three year special parole term. 6…