United States v. Pierotti

David Pierotti (defendant) pled guilty to misdemeanor battery against his then-fiancée. After his one-year probation expired, he got a hunting license to hunt for deer. According to Pierotti, both his probation officer and a friend who was a sheriff mistakenly told Pierotti he could buy a gun and go hunting if his conviction was not a felony. Pierotti picked out a rifle at Walmart, and a clerk told him told him to complete the form required by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives at a computer kiosk. Pierotti initially clicked “yes” in response to the question “Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?” But when Pierotti submitted the form, a pop-up window advised him to review his answers “to make any changes/corrections that may be necessary.” Remembering his probation officer and the sheriff’s advice, Pierotti went back, changed his answer to only that one question, and resubmitted the form. Pierotti did not click on a link providing instructions for answering the question, which would have clarified that Pierotti’s conviction definitely qualified as a misdemeanor crime of violence. The paper copy of the form Pierotti signed contained the same information in tiny print. The federal prosecutor (plaintiff) indicted Pierotti for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), which requires proving the person charged acted knowingly. The court gave the jury the usual instruction on “knowingly,” plus a willful blindness or “ostrich” instruction that “knowingly” could include “a strong suspicion that the statement he made was false and that he deliberately avoided the truth,” but not “if he was merely mistaken or careless in not discovering the truth, or if he failed to make an effort to discover the truth.” The jury convicted, and Pierotti appealed, arguing that the court should not have given an ostrich instruction.