U.S. v. Dozier, No. 823

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore FRIENDLY and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges, and LASKER; LASKER; PER CURIAM; In response
Citation522 F.2d 224
Docket NumberD,No. 823
Decision Date27 August 1975
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jacqueline DOZIER, Appellant. ocket 74-2594.

Page 224

522 F.2d 224
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Jacqueline DOZIER, Appellant.
No. 823, Docket 74-2594.
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
Argued April 8, 1975.
Decided June 10, 1975.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 27, 1975.

Page 225

Sheila Ginsberg, New York City (William J. Gallagher, The Legal Aid Society, New York City), for appellant.

Samuel H. Dawson, Brooklyn, N. Y. (David G. Trager, U. S. Atty., E. D. N. Y., and Paul B. Bergman, Asst. U. S. Atty., of counsel), for appellee.

Before FRIENDLY and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges, and LASKER, District Judge. *

LASKER, District Judge.

Jacqueline Dozier appeals from conviction after trial on a one-count indictment of aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Orrin G. Judd, J. Dozier was sentenced under the Youth Correction Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5010(e) to a 90-day period of study and observation. Although appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence against her, she contends that the trial judge erred in portions of his charge to the jury and that the conviction must be reversed because the verdict was rendered by less than twelve competent jurors, in violation of Rule 23(b) Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Page 226

The facts are uncomplicated. A friend of appellant's, Mary Lou Dantzler, 1 arranged to sell cocaine to two New York City undercover policemen. According to plan, the officers drove to Dantzler's home on the night of December 11, 1973. Dantzler and Dozier met them on the street. Dantzler told one of the policemen that she had the package but that the "deal" would take place elsewhere. While Dantzler went to get the cocaine, appellant, at Dantzler's request, entered the officers' car and directed them to a movie theater. When they reached the theater, the three went inside and waited approximately fifteen minutes for Dantzler to arrive. While they were waiting, appellant assured her companions that Dantzler did "straight business." When Dantzler arrived, she and one of the officers entered the men's restroom while Dozier and the other officer stood guard outside the door. Shortly afterward, Dantzler and Dozier were arrested. According to appellant's version, Dantzler had asked her, without further explanation, whether she would escort the men to the movie theater. Dozier denied overhearing any conversation outside Dantzler's house, and testified that she did not ask Dantzler where she was going or why, at the time Dantzler went to pick up the cocaine. She maintained that the wait for Dantzler at the theater did not arouse her suspicions and that she did not want to know the reason for the rendezvous in the men's restroom.

Appellant first claims error in the judge's charge on the question of conscious avoidance of knowledge. He stated:

"I refer to the word knowingly, knowledge can be proved by a defendant's conduct and by all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. No person can intentionally avoid knowledge by closing his eyes to facts which should prompt him to investigate; and so, knowledge can be established by direct or circumstantial evidence just as any other facts in the case, and you can consider the peculiarity if you consider as such of going to a theater with a couple of strange men without the one who introduced him to you at 10:00 o'clock at night, in the middle of the second show and see whether that is a circumstance that implies knowledge that there was a cocaine transaction to take place in an area where Miss Dozier, Sr. said cocaine was all over the neighborhood, or whether it was just an adventurous girl who thought here was a chance to go out, she had an older friend and she would have an interesting time. If you find from all the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt either that the defendant knew that she was helping in a cocaine transaction, or that she had a conscious purpose to avoid finding out the identity of the substance so as to close her eyes to the facts, you could find sufficient evidence to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But it's up to you whether there is a reasonable doubt."

We find nothing objectionable or erroneous in the charge nor in the court's supplemental instructions on the subject. 2 In one of two appeals decided

Page 227

last year which approved similar...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Eaglin, No. 75-2720
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 10 Agosto 1977
    ...court's giving of this "deliberate ignorance" instruction by no means rises to the level of "plain error." See United States v. Dozier, 522 F.2d 224, 228 (2d Cir.) (on petition for rehearing), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1021, 96 S.Ct. 461, 46 L.Ed.2d 394 (1975), cited in both Jewell, 532 F.2d a......
  • U.S. v. Taylor, Nos. 330-334 and 336
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 13 Abril 1977
    ...convinced that a hearing would assist us in resolving the ultimate question of prejudice at this late date. See United States v. Dozier, 522 F.2d 224, 228 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1021, 96 S.Ct. 461, 46 L.Ed.2d 394 (1975). The time for these potential difficulties to be aired with ......
  • U.S. v. Jewell, No. 74-2832
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 27 Febrero 1976
    ...at or near the time the offenses are alleged to have been committed. 475 F.2d at 287 n.37 (emphasis added). 12 United States v. Dozier, 522 F.2d 224, 226 (2d Cir. 1975) (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); upheld the following jury instruction: "If you find from all the evidence beyond a reasonable doub......
  • United States v. Austin, No. CR 84-151-01.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • 19 Agosto 1985
    ...v. Restrepo-Granda, 575 F.2d 524 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 935, 99 S.Ct. 331, 58 L.Ed.2d 332 (1978); United States v. Dozier, 522 F.2d 224, 226-27 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1021, 96 S.Ct. 461, 46 L.Ed.2d 394 99 United States v. Murrieta-Bejarano, 552 F.2d 1323, 1325 (9th Ci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • U.S. v. Eaglin, No. 75-2720
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 10 Agosto 1977
    ...court's giving of this "deliberate ignorance" instruction by no means rises to the level of "plain error." See United States v. Dozier, 522 F.2d 224, 228 (2d Cir.) (on petition for rehearing), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1021, 96 S.Ct. 461, 46 L.Ed.2d 394 (1975), cited in both Jewell, 532 F.2d a......
  • U.S. v. Taylor, Nos. 330-334 and 336
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 13 Abril 1977
    ...convinced that a hearing would assist us in resolving the ultimate question of prejudice at this late date. See United States v. Dozier, 522 F.2d 224, 228 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1021, 96 S.Ct. 461, 46 L.Ed.2d 394 (1975). The time for these potential difficulties to be aired with ......
  • U.S. v. Jewell, No. 74-2832
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 27 Febrero 1976
    ...at or near the time the offenses are alleged to have been committed. 475 F.2d at 287 n.37 (emphasis added). 12 United States v. Dozier, 522 F.2d 224, 226 (2d Cir. 1975) (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); upheld the following jury instruction: "If you find from all the evidence beyond a reasonable doub......
  • United States v. Austin, No. CR 84-151-01.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • 19 Agosto 1985
    ...v. Restrepo-Granda, 575 F.2d 524 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 935, 99 S.Ct. 331, 58 L.Ed.2d 332 (1978); United States v. Dozier, 522 F.2d 224, 226-27 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1021, 96 S.Ct. 461, 46 L.Ed.2d 394 99 United States v. Murrieta-Bejarano, 552 F.2d 1323, 1325 (9th Ci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT