Whether the government must prove a defendant's specific knowledge of the predicate felony offense when prosecuting a charge of receiving unlawfully obtained money under 18 U.S.C. § 880

QUESTION PRESENTED “Coyotes” (smugglers) in Mexico duped “pollos” (would-be migrants to the United States) into believing they would be snuck across the border for a negotiated fee to be paid by their families. A few days later, the coyotes told the families the pollos had arrived, and Petitioners picked up the fee from the family. In fact, the pollos remained in Mexico, being held against their will. For their role in the scheme, Petitioners were charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 880, which makes it unlawful to receive money obtained from the commission any felony offense in Chapter 41, “knowing the same to have been unlawfully obtained.” Petitioners were alleged to have received proceeds from a violation of 18 U.S.C. 875(a), which makes it unlawful to transmit in interstate or foreign commerce ransom demands for the release of a kidnapped person. Petitioners argued they did not know the money they received was ransom money. And this Court’s precedent requires courts to interpret criminal statutes to require that a defendant possess a mens rea as to every element of an offense, especially elements separating lawful from unlawful conduct. But Petitioners’ defense was fruitless because the jury was instructed that the government need prove only that they knew the money was “unlawfully obtained” in some way, irrespective of whether they knew the money arose from a demand for ransom, the predicate offense. Does Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952), and its progeny compel correction of serious and manifest error? i STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES United States v. Edgar Hernandez Lemus, United States v. Junior Almendarez Martinez, Central District of California, Case No. 21-CR-296-JFW (Walter, J.). Judgments were entered on February 28, 2022. Docket Entries 116 & 119. United States v. Edgar Hernandez Lemus, United States v. Junior Almendarez Martinez, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case Nos. 22-50046 & 22-50051. Published Opinion and Memorandum Disposition issued March 5, 2024. Docket Entries 52, 53. Motion for Rehearing denied June 10, 2024. Docket Entry 60. See also Pet. App’x. ii