burden of proof to the defendant, United States v. Murrieta-Bejarano, 552 F.2d 1323, 1325 (9th Cir.1977). In this case, the district court instructed the jury that deliberate ignorance would come into play if Stone “believed a false and fraudulent claim was being made ... and consciously tried to avoid” actual knowledge. The jury was told that Stone’s belief and his actions had to be established “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Such a charge tells the jury in no uncertain terms that the mens rea element is the defendant’s belief and conscious actions, the existence of which must be measured by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not a negligence standard. See United States v. Sasser, 974 F.2d 1544, 1552-53 (10th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 1063, 122 L.Ed.2d 368 (1993) (<HOLDING>). The second rationale offered by the contrary
holding that unless an erroneous instruction was unlikely to have changed the result of the trial a reviewing court cannot say that giving the instruction was harmless error holding that a party waived an allegation that an instruction was erroneous where the party failed to object at trial to the instruction on those grounds holding that a properly worded deliberate ignorance instruction obviates the harmful effects of the erroneous giving of such an instruction holding that the trial court erred by giving a misleading instruction holding that the giving of an erroneous reasonable doubt instruction can never be harmless error