"In other words, in order to establish a willful violation of a [criminal] statute, the Government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful." United States v. Kukushkin, 61 F.4th 327, 332 (2d Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted), quoting Bryan, 524 U.S. at 191-92, 118 S.Ct. 1939.
) “A conviction will not be overturned for refusal to give a requested charge . . . unless that [requested] instruction is legally correct, represents a theory of defense with basis in the record that would lead to acquittal, and the theory is not effectively presented elsewhere in the charge.” United States v. Kukushkin, 61 F.4th 327, 332 (2d Cir. 2023) (citing United States v. Holland, 381 F.3d 80, 84 (2d Cir. 2004)). Here, Defendant's proposed Breadgang instruction, at a minimum, misstated the legal requirement, in that it instructed the jury that they could not convict Defendant if they found he had committed acts for the purpose of gaining entrance to and maintaining and increasing position in the Breadgang,
the conviction will only be overturned if the defendant can show that the "requested instruction is legally correct, represents a theory of defense with basis in the record that would lead to acquittal, and the theory is not effectively presented elsewhere in the charge." United States v. Kukushkin, 61 F.4th 327, 332 (2d Cir. 2023) (alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Although the district court did not expressly define "willfully," we have generally defined the term to mean what Zheng says it means. See, e.g., United States v. Kukushkin, 61 F.4th 327, 332 (2d Cir. 2023) ("[I]n order to establish a willful violation of a statute, the Government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful." (quoting Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 191-92, 118 S.Ct. 1939, 141 L.Ed.2d 197 (1998))).
United States v. Kukushkin, 61 F.4th 327, 332 (2d Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted).
United States v. Parnas, No. 19-cr-725, 2022 WL 669869, at *7 (S.D.N.Y, Mar. 7, 2022), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Kukushkin, 61 F.4th 327 (2d Cir. 2023); see also Ho, 984 F.3d at 209-10 (rejecting argument that visual timeline should be precluded because it presented a "narrative supporting the prosecution's theory of the case").