UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. STEVE HALE
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Niemeyer, May 15, 2017,
Willful blindness – A mid-level fence who never asked his suppliers why items were sold to him with store labels on them (and, in fact, had those labels removed prior to re-selling them) could be considered willfully blind to the fact he was dealing in stolen merchandise

Facts:
1st-level fences bought stolen/shoplifted items directly from thieves. They then delivered the items to Hale and his co-conspirators. Hale and his people sorted the stolen items, checked them for damage/expiration, “cleaned” the items of retailer stickers and sensors, and sent the items to a 3rd-level fence.

Hale was previously charged, but the charges were dropped because the government couldn’t prove that Hale knew he was dealing in stolen goods. At trial in this case, the government didn’t bring in the prior case by name but used the facts of that case to show that Hale was aware that stolen products were a “great risk” in the secondary market and that he had previously had dealings with someone that dealt in stolen goods.

Hale was convicted after a jury trial of transportation of stolen goods, falsified tax returns, and other related charges.

Willful blindness has “two basic requirements: (1) the defendant must subjectively believe that there is a high probability that a fact exists
and (2) the defendant must take deliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact.”

From the case: Enough evidence to find willful blindness where:
Hale was careful never to ask his main supplier of “second-hand” goods about who “her people” were or why so many of her goods were marked with stickers indicating that they belonged on the shelves of local stores. Instead, he had such stickers removed. Despite knowing from his earlier dealings of the “very big risk” that individuals selling these types of goods could be fences, he elected not to require his suppliers to ever provide receipts or other documentation showing that they were obtaining their goods through legitimate channels, and he structured his operation in a manner that minimized his direct contact with them.

Evidence- Testimony that “boosters” were drug addicts was “critical to explaining why there was a network of people willing to shoplift thousands of dollars’ worth of merchandise and sell it quickly for very cheap prices.”