08-08-2023, 02:33 AM
Jack Smith will not need to prove what Trump's mind was thinking in order to secure a conviction. This is due to the Doctrine of WILLFUL BLINDNESS and the SCOTUS recently decided this in 2011, citing well-established case law with several cases going back over 100 years. Citing https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/10-6P.ZO
The doctrine of willful blindness is well-established in criminal law. Many criminal statutes require proof that a defendant acted knowingly or willfully, and courts applying the doctrine of willful blindness hold that defendants cannot escape the reach of these statutes by deliberately shielding themselves from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances. The traditional rationale for this doctrine is that defendants who behave in this manner are just as culpable as those who have actual knowledge. Edwards, The Criminal Degrees of Knowledge, 17 Mod. L. Rev. 294, 302 (1954) (hereinafter Edwards) (observing on the basis of English authorities that “up to the present day, no real doubt has been cast on the proposition that [willful blindness] is as culpable as actual knowledge”). It is also said that persons who know enough to blind themselves to direct proof of critical facts in effect have actual knowledge of those facts. See United States v. Jewell , 532 F. 2d 697, 700 (CA9 1976) (en banc).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Jack Smith will not need to prove what was in Trump's mind on January 6th. Jack Smith will have the testimony of VP Pence, Chris Krebs, Wm Barr, Pat Cipollone, Jay Sekulow, and the legal opinions of over 60 courts ruling, by many Trump-appointed, that there was zero merit to any widespread election fraud claims. My guess, Mr. Smith already has these folks under oath in sworn depositions so they cannot back out or change their story at trial.
The doctrine of willful blindness is well-established in criminal law. Many criminal statutes require proof that a defendant acted knowingly or willfully, and courts applying the doctrine of willful blindness hold that defendants cannot escape the reach of these statutes by deliberately shielding themselves from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances. The traditional rationale for this doctrine is that defendants who behave in this manner are just as culpable as those who have actual knowledge. Edwards, The Criminal Degrees of Knowledge, 17 Mod. L. Rev. 294, 302 (1954) (hereinafter Edwards) (observing on the basis of English authorities that “up to the present day, no real doubt has been cast on the proposition that [willful blindness] is as culpable as actual knowledge”). It is also said that persons who know enough to blind themselves to direct proof of critical facts in effect have actual knowledge of those facts. See United States v. Jewell , 532 F. 2d 697, 700 (CA9 1976) (en banc).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Jack Smith will not need to prove what was in Trump's mind on January 6th. Jack Smith will have the testimony of VP Pence, Chris Krebs, Wm Barr, Pat Cipollone, Jay Sekulow, and the legal opinions of over 60 courts ruling, by many Trump-appointed, that there was zero merit to any widespread election fraud claims. My guess, Mr. Smith already has these folks under oath in sworn depositions so they cannot back out or change their story at trial.
