Child Sex Offenses

United States v. Daniels, 653 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2011)

The defendant was charged with engaging in a child exploitation enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g)(2). This offense requires proof of three or more violations (a “series”) involving more than one victim, undertaken in concert with at least three or more persons. The “in concert” element cannot include child victims, even if the “victims” are consenting child pornography, or child prostitution participants. In this case, the government failed to prove that there were three or more people acting in concert with the defendant.

United States v. Broxmeyer, 616 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2010)

The defendant was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2423, transporting a minor in interstate commerce with intent that the individual engaged in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. This statute is the offspring of the original Mann Act, which dealt primarily with transporting prostitutes across state lines. In this case, the defendant was a field hockey coach who was charged with transporting one of his players (a minor) across state lines in connection with a practice and engaging in sexual conduct with her. The Second Circuit reversed the conviction, because there was insufficient evidence to support the government’s theory that the defendant caused the defendant to travel across state lines with regard to the trip to the practice (her father drove her to the practice and was available to pick her up the next day, so the defendant was not the cause of her interstate travel). The defendant did eventually drive the minor back home after practice and during the return trip, they engaged in sexual conduct. However, the evidence established that the sexual conduct occurred prior to the crossing of a state line and in order to be guilty of a § 2423 offense, the defendant must form the intent to engage in sexual conduct before crossing the state line and then engage in the sexual conduct after crossing the state line.

United States v. Taylor, 640 F.3d 255 (7th Cir. 2011)

The defendant masturbated in front of a webcam while communicating with a child (actually, a police officer who he thought was a child) and also invited the girl to masturbate. He was prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 2422: using a means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, entice or coerce any child to engage in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempt to do so. Judge Posner decided that this activity did not constitute “sexual activity.” There is no definition of the term in the code. The term “sexual act” in a subsequent section of the code does require proof of physical contact.

United States v. Cherer, 513 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2008)

When a defendant has targeted an adult decoy posing as a child, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant believed that the person he was targeting was a child in order to convict the defendant for an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b).