With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". childhood friend would be used to commit robberies, including that the pump was advertised for “forcible entry” use and testimony that co-conspirators had discussed some of their robbery plans in front of Burgos, even asking him to join. A rational jury could conclude that Burgos was aware of such a probability and consciously avoided confirming that fact. Contrary to Burgos’s assertion at oral argument and in supplemental briefing, it was not necessary for the government to show that Burgos was aware of a high probability that the pump would be used for robberies of drug dealers (as charged in the indictment), only that he was aware of a high probability that the pump would be used for some of the conspiracy’s unlawful aims, such as robberies generally. See Lanza, 790 F.2d at 1022-23 (<HOLDING>). In any event, the charge as a whole made

A: holding that waiver by attorney was binding upon the accused when before the state introduced the evidence complained of on appeal counsel for the state in the presence of the accused and his counsel stated the agreement and the evidence of the witness was then read to the jury in the presence of the accused and his counsel without objection
B: holding the government must demonstrate the defendant knew of the characteristics of the firearm that required it to be registered
C: holding that because original interception was not unlawful subsequent use by prosecutor could not be found unlawful
D: holding that the government must demonstrate that the accused had some knowledge of the conspiracys unlawful aims emphasis in original
D.