Legal Definitions - ostrich instruction

An ostrich instruction is a specific type of direction given by a judge to a jury during a trial. It is rooted in the metaphor of an ostrich burying its head in the sand to avoid seeing danger. In a legal context, this instruction addresses situations where a party claims they lacked knowledge about a particular fact, but the circumstances suggest they deliberately avoided learning the truth.

Essentially, an ostrich instruction tells the jury that if they find a party intentionally closed their eyes to obvious facts or deliberately avoided acquiring knowledge, then the jury can infer that the party *did* have knowledge. It is designed to prevent individuals or organizations from escaping responsibility by claiming "willful blindness" – that is, pretending not to know something that was readily apparent or easily discoverable, rather than genuinely being ignorant.

• Example 1 (Civil Case - Corporate Negligence):

  A senior executive at a large financial firm is sued for negligence, with allegations that they failed to prevent a widespread fraudulent scheme orchestrated by their subordinates. The executive testifies that they were completely unaware of any wrongdoing, despite receiving numerous internal audit reports highlighting suspicious transactions and employee complaints about unethical practices, which they routinely delegated without review.

  An ostrich instruction would inform the jury that if they believe the executive deliberately ignored or avoided reviewing these clear warnings and reports, they can infer that the executive *knew* or *should have known* about the fraudulent activities, rather than genuinely lacking knowledge.

• Example 2 (Criminal Case - Receiving Stolen Property):

  A person is charged with receiving stolen property after purchasing several high-end bicycles at an unusually low price from an individual they met in a parking lot. The seller insisted on cash, had no receipts, and the bicycles still had security tags attached, though crudely removed. The buyer claims they had no idea the bikes were stolen.

  The judge might give an ostrich instruction, allowing the jury to conclude that if the defendant deliberately chose to ignore the highly suspicious circumstances (unusually low price, unusual selling location, no receipts, security tags), they can infer the defendant *knew* the goods were likely stolen, rather than genuinely being ignorant.

• Example 3 (Civil Case - Environmental Law):

  A property owner is sued for environmental contamination on their land, which was leased to a manufacturing company. The owner claims they were unaware of any illegal dumping, even though local residents had repeatedly complained to them about strong chemical odors emanating from the property, discolored soil near the factory, and suspicious nighttime truck activity, all of which the owner dismissed without investigation.

  An ostrich instruction would permit the jury to infer that if the property owner deliberately failed to investigate or acknowledge these repeated warnings and obvious signs, they can be considered to have had knowledge of the contamination, rather than being genuinely ignorant of the environmental violations.