In United States v. Sanders, Cory Sanders was convicted of wire fraud pursuant to a jury instruction that defined willful intent, in part, as follows: “Willful intent or guilty knowledge may be inferred from the secretive or irregular manner in which a transaction is carried out.” Sanders complained on appeal that this instruction effectively lessened the government's burden of proof  because it, "improperly equated irregularity with willfulness." The Fourth Circuit acknowledged that the challenged instruction, if read in isolation, "could run the risk of confusing the jury." But this was one of seven instructions related to intent, including one making it clear that the government was required to prove Sanders acted willfully, which meant, "to act with knowledge that one's conduct is unlawful and with the intent to do something the law forbids, that is to say, with the bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law." Thus, "the instructions 'construed as a whole, and in light of the whole record, adequately informed the jury of the controlling legal principles without misleading or confusing the jury to the prejudice of the objecting party.' United States v. Hassler, 992 F.3d 243, 246 (4th Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. Kivanc, 714 F.3d 782, 794 (4th Cir. 2013))." This wasn't error at all, because the instructions, when taken as a whole and in light of the charges, adequately conveyed the law. Conviction affirmed. Of some interest, the challenged instruction came from Sand's Modern Federal Jury Instructions-Criminal, a widely used and cited authority in the Second Circuit.

Here is the opinion in United States v. Sanders.

(wisenberg)