# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 15 86

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Je rry Gol li he r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta - Rap id Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 20 , 20 15
Fil ed : Ap ril 28 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, BYE, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SMI TH, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Je rry Gol li he r was co nv ic te d by a jury of at te m pt ed co m m erci al se x tra ffi ck in g

of a m in or

. He ap pe al s, argu in g th at hi s cou ns el was in effe ct iv e an d th at th e di st ric t

co ur t sh ou ld ha ve ad m it te d cert ai n e-m ai ls , p ro vi de d t h e tri al tra ns cri pt to th e jury 1

The Hon or ab le Karen E. Sch rei er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of So ut h Dak ot a.in res po ns e to a jury qu es ti on , a n d s t ric ke n th e pr os ecu to r's al le ge dl y im pr op er

st at em en ts . W e aff

irm.

I. Bac kg ro un d

Law en fo rcem en t pl aced th e fo ll owi ng ad ve rti se m en t on a web si te : "Her e fo r

th e [Bi ke r] Ra ll y wit h 2 y ou ng er gi rls th at are do wn fo r m o s t a nyth in g. Age m ak es

no di ffer en ce s o d on 't b e afr ai d t o a sk ." Go ll ih er re sp on de d t o th at In te rn et ad by em ai l, no t kn owi ng th at la w en fo rcem en t ha d pl aced it as pa rt of a se x- tra ffi ck in g st in g

op erat io n. The of

fic er who rece iv ed Gol li he r's e-m ai l res po nd ed

, "Bo bb i is 13 al m os t

14 an d Ton i is 12

. The y bo th ha ve ex pe rie nc e an d are go od to go

. Let m e kn ow wha t

y ou [th in k]." Afte r a n i nt erch an ge th at in cl ud ed ag e-re gr es se d ph ot os an d a

di sc us si on of pr ic e an d a m eet in g lo cat io n, Gol li he r, ex pe ct in g to pi ck up Bo bb i, m et

un de rco ve r la w en fo rcem en t. Gol li he r go t o ut of hi s car an d go t in to th e car of th e

un de rco ve r of

fic er, who m Gol li he r be li ev ed to be Bo bb i's p i mp

. Wh e n th e of fic er

as ke d Gol li he r wha t he w a n t e d

, Gol li he r in di cat ed th at he was wil li ng to pa y th e

di sc us se d $1 50 fo r ha lf an ho ur wit h Bo bb i. The of fic er pr om

pt ly arre st ed Gol li he r.

Gol li he r was ch arg ed wit h on e co un t of at te m pt e d co m m erci al se x tra ffi ck in g of a

m in or , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 15 91 (a)( 1) , 15 91 (b )(1 ), an d 1 59 4( a).

Befo re tri al

, th e go ve rn m en t so ug ht to pr oh ib it Gol li he r fro m in tro du ci ng at

tri al e-m ai ls th at he ha d pr ev io us ly ex ch an ge d wit h pu rp or te d pr os ti tu te s in whi ch he

reb uf fed th ei r se rv ic es up on l e a r n i ng th at th ey were un de rag e. Gol li he r as se rts th at

th e e-m ai ls wou ld ha ve im pa ct ed th e jury's de li be rat io ns si gn ifi can tl y be cau se th ey

sh owe d th at he was no t in te res te d in un de rag e se x. The co ur t ex cl ud ed th e e-m ai ls as

he ars ay

. Bu t th e c o u r t a n d th e pr os ecu ti on reco gn iz ed th at Gol li he r m ig ht be

pe rm it te d to in tro du ce th e e-m ai ls as a p r i o r c on si st en t st at em en t sh ou ld th e

pr ose cu tio n call in to qu es ti on whe th er th e ev en ts to ok pl ace. Gol li he r ne ve r recoun te d

th e ev en ts su rro un di ng th os e e-m ai ls du rin g hi s vo lu nt ary te st im on y no r of fere d th e

e-m ai ls for ad m is si on in to ev id en ce.

-2

-Dur in g th e pr os ecu to r's cl os in g arg um en t, he di sc us se d th e la w of en tra pm en t

an d th e el em en ts of th e c r i m e of at te m pt

. The pr os ecu to r ex pl ai ne d th e en tra pm en t

de fen se th is way :

Let's fli p ov er to th e ne xt in st ru ct io n, la di es an d ge nt le m en

. In st ru ct io n nu m

be r 3. Entr ap m en t. W

ha t . . . y ou ha ve to de ci de is was th e de fen da nt wil li ng to do th is or di d so m eb od y ha ve to ta lk hi m in to
i t ? D i d so m eb od y ha ve to twi st hi s arm ? In th is cas e, th e ev id en c e sh owe d two th in gs

. The go ve rn m en t pr ov ed be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t
th at th e de fen da nt was wil li ng [o n] Aug us t 2 , 20 13 , to go ou t on to th e In te rn et to try to o bt ai n a y ou ng gi rl for se x in ex ch an ge for $1 50 . The

go ve rn m en t pr ov ed be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at no bo dy fo rced hi m

to do it

. Nob od y fo rced hi m to do it . The g ov ern m en t h as to pro ve on e of th es e two th in gs

. Not bo th

, bu t th e ev id en ce sh ows th at he wil li ng ly
di d it an d th e ev id en ce sh ows th at no bo dy fo rced hi m to do it

. He di d it
al l on hi s own

. He kn ew wha t he was do in g and he to ok th os e st ep s all

on hi s o wn.

The pro se cu to r m ad e th e fo ll owi ng st at em en ts ab ou t t he cri m e o f at te m pt :

The ot he r is su e is whe th er or no t th ere was a su bs ta nt ia l st ep an d

w h e t h er or no t he to ok th at st ep . La di es an d ge nt le m en , we do n't ha v e

to pr ov e th at he ha d se x, ob vi ou sl y , bu t we al so do n't ha ve to pr ov e th at
h e w o u ld ha ve ha d se x. It is up to y ou to de ci de whe th er a su bs t a n t i a l

st ep was m ad e. And I wou ld fo cu s y ou on th e se ct io n do wn he re whi ch
is th at it no t be in co m

pa ti bl e wit h in no cen ce, y et it m us t be ne ces sa ry to
th e co ns um m at io n of th e cr i me a n d to be of su ch a na tu re th at a

reas on ab le ob se rv er, v i e w in g it in co nt ex t, co ul d co nc lu de be y on d a

reas on ab le do ub t th at it was un de rta ke n in acco rd an ce with a de si gn to vi ol at e th e st at ut e. W e do n't ha v e to pr ov e th at he wou ld ha ve do ne it ;

we ha ve to pr ov e th at he to ok a su bs ta nt ia l st ep to en ga ge in co m m erci al

se x tra ffi ck in g, no t th at at th e en d o f th e d ay th at was wha t he wan te d.
Tha t's no t wh at we ha ve to pro ve

.

-3

-The pro se cu to r al so sai d t he fol lo win g o n t he same top ic :

And th en th e ne xt st or y was , y ou kn ow, I wou ld n't ha ve go ne th ro ug h wit h it ; I was pu sh ed in to it

. And th en he ag reed th at he sh owe d

up , t ha t he was t he on e who was c ha tt in g, t ha t h e sh owe d u p, an d th en he sa id

, "Bu t I di dn 't ag ree to it

. I was jus t lo ok in g in to i t

. I h a dn 't
de ci de d." Lad ie s an d ge nt le m en , th at is no t a de fen se

. If y ou de ci de th at he to ok a su bs ta nt ia l st ep en ou gh at th e m om en t th at he was arre st ed

, if
th at at th at m om en t th e su bs ta nt ia l st ep ha d be en m ad e, th en th is cas e is
do ne

. It do es n't m at te r whe th er or no t he was go in g— wha t he was go in g

to do at h is ho us e.

Als o du rin g cl o s i n g arg um en t, th e pr os ecu to r us ed th e fir st -p ers on pr on ou ns

we an d I in as ki ng th e jury t o c on vi ct Gol li he r. The pr os ecu to r co nc lu de d hi s

su m m at io n wi th th e fo ll owi ng :

Th e go ve rn m en t ha s pr ov ed [it s] c as e, al l of th es e el em en ts th a t
it was [n ot ] an en tra pm en t, be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. And we as k th at

as y ou de li be rat e, we are co nf id en t as y ou de li be rat e, th at y ou wil l ag ree

t h e de fen da nt is gu il ty be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t of go in g on to t h e In te rn et an d at te m

pt in g to so li ci t a m in or fo r se x fo r $1 50 on Aug us t 2,

20 13 . Than k you

.

And th e p ro se cu to r en de d h is reb ut ta l t hi s way:

He's gu il ty o f at te m

pt ed co m m erci al se x t r a f

f ic ki ng . Of ev ery el em en t
th at we are req ui red to pr ov e, he 's gu il ty be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t an d

I as k you to fin d h im

as s uc h. Th an k you

.

Afte r th e jury ret ire d to de li be rat e, th e jury fo rep ers on se nt a no te to th e co ur t

ex pr es si ng co nf

us io n a bo ut th e ev id en ce:

W e ha ve co nf

us io n on th e ag e of Bo bb i— be in g 13 or 14

. The re was an

e-m ai l th at st at ed sh e was 13 an d th e co ur t pr oc eed in gs st at ed Bo bb i as 14

.

-4

-The co ur t re sp on de d:

As a jud ge , I can no t co m m en t o n t he ev id en ce. It is y ou r job as th e jury to de te rm in e th e fact s. You n e ed to rel y on y ou r own

reco ll ect io n of th e ev id en ce an d un an im ou sl y ag ree be y on d a reas on ab le
do ub t.

Thi s in s t r u c ti on sh ou ld be ta ke n to ge th er wit h th e in st ru ct io ns I

pr ev io us ly ga ve to y ou

. The in st ru ct io ns m us t be co ns id ered as a who le

.

Afte r th e jury ret ur ne d a gu il ty ve rd ic t, th e di st ric t co u r t e n t e red a fin al
ju d g m en t of co nv ic ti on

. Gol li he r ap pe al s. W e ha ve juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e

co nv ic ti on pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1.

II. Dis cu ss io n

On ap pe al

, Gol li he r arg ue s th a t (A) hi s tri al co un se l pr ov id ed in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce of co u n se l; (B) th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by no t ad m it ti ng

Gol li he r's e-m ai ls un de r th e res id ua l ex cep ti on to th e h e a r s a y ru le ; (C) th e di st ric t

co ur t p la in ly erre d by no t pr ov id in g th e tri al tra ns cri pt to th e juro rs in res po ns e to

t h e i r qu es ti on ; an d (D) th e di st ric t co ur t pl ai nl y erre d by no t st rik in g cert ai n

st at em en ts th at th e p ro se cu to r m ad e to th e jury.

A. In ef fe ct iv e Ass is ta nc e o

f Co un se l

Gol li he r arg ue s th at it is "re ad il y ap pa ren t" th at hi s tri al co un se l was in effe ct ive
by no t se ek in g to ad m it th e al le ge d l y ex cu lp at or y e-m ai ls th ro ug h th e bu si ne ss

reco rd s ex cep ti on to th e he ars ay ru le un de r Ru le 80 3( 6) o f t h e F e d eral Ru le s of

Evi de nc e. He as se rts th at th es e e-m ai ls co nt ai n co nv ers at io ns show ing tha t he stopp ed

co m m un ic at in g with an y pu rp or te d pro st it ut e on ce he learn ed th at sh e was a m in or

. Gol li he r us ed a Y a h oo e-m ai l acco un t. He reas on s th at th es e e-m ai ls are Yah oo 's

bu si ne ss reco rd s. As su ch

, he arg ue s th at hi s at to rn ey sh ou ld ha ve so ug ht th ei r

-5

-ad m is si on wit h th e he lp of a reco rd s cu st od ia n fro m Yah oo

. He co nt en ds th at hi s

at to rn ey 's fai lu re to do so co ns ti tu t e d i ne ffec ti ve as si st an ce of co un se l. W e de cl in e

to ad dr es s t hi s ar gu m en t.

"[W] e rev ie w cl ai m s of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l on di rect ap pe al on ly

in 'ex cep ti on al cas es .'" Uni te d St at es v. Sa nc he z- Gon za le

z , 64 3 F.3 d 62 6, 62 8
(8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) ( c i t at io n om it te d) ; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. So ri an o- Her na nd ez , 31 0 F.3 d 10 99 , 1 10 5 & n.9 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ). One su ch ex cep ti on al cas e ex is ts whe n

"t he al le ge d erro r of tri al co un se l is 'read il y ap pa ren t.'" S a n c h ez -Go nz al ez , 64 3 F.3 d at 62 8

– 2 9 ( c it at io n om it te d)

. W e de cl in e to co ns id er Gol li he r's arg um en t

be cau se he ha s no t sh own th at hi s cas e is ex cep ti on al

, warra nt in g ou r ex am in at io n of

hi s cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l on di rect ap pe al rat he r th an th ro ug h a

co ll at eral at ta ck in a ha be as co rp us act io n. It is no t read il y ap pa ren t th at th e e-m ai ls

wou ld ha ve be en ad m is si bl e in th e m an ne r th at Gol li he r co nt en ds

. On th is reco rd

, we

are u nwi ll in g t o a dd res s Go ll ih er's in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m

.

B. Resi du al

Excep ti on to th e Hea rs ay Rul e

The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at Gol li he r's e-m ai ls

, whi ch al le ge dl y sh ow hi m

reb uf fin g un de rag e se x, were in ad m is si bl e un de r th e res id ua l ex cep ti on to th e he ars ay

ru le

, Ru le 80 7 of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Evi de nc e. Gol li he r arg ue s th at th e e-m ai ls are

ad m is si bl e un de r th e res id ua l ex cep ti on be cau se th ey wou ld h a v e be en m or e

pr ob at iv e th an an y ot he r fo rm of ev id en ce on th e m at te r. Bec au se Gol li he r ha s fai le d

to pr ov id e us wit h an y in fo rm at io n wit h whi ch to ev al ua te th e pr ob at iv e qu al it y of th e

e-m ai ls , we affi rm

.

Ru le 28 (a)( 8) (A) of th e Fed eral Ru le s of A p p e l l a te Pro ced ur e req ui res an

ap pe ll an t's arg um en t se ct io n to in cl ud e "ci ta ti on s to th e

. . . pa rts of th e rec or d on

whi ch th e ap pe ll an t re li es ." "We ha ve in th e p as t . . . refu se d t o c on si de r arg um en ts

no t su pp or te d by pr op er [ r eco rd ] ci ta ti on s." Min n. Ass 'n of Nu rs e Ane st he ti st s v.

All in a Hea lt h Sy s. Co rp

. , 27 6 F.3 d 10 32

, 10 55 n.1 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

-6

-W e m ay th eref o r e r e f u s e to co ns id er a ch al le ng e to a di st ric t co ur t's de ci si on to

ex cl ud e ev id en ce whe n th e ap pe ll an t fai ls to di rect us to th e pa rt of th e reco rd th at

co nt ai ns th e su bs ta nc e of th e ex c lu de d ev id en ce, es pe ci al ly whe n th e su bs ta nc e is

ne ces sa ry to ev al ua te ad m is si bi li ty un de r th e Fed eral Ru le s of Evi de nc e. Se e Co dy v.

Har ri s , 40 9 F.3 d 85 3, 86 0– 61 (7 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (d ecl in in g to ev al ua te de fen da nt 's Ru le

80 7 ch al le ng e be cau se he ha d "n ot pr ov id ed en ou gh in fo rm at io n to ev al ua te whe th er [th e Ru le 80 7] cri te ria ha ve be en m et ").

In th is cas e, Gol li he r se ek s to ha ve cert ai n e-m ai ls ad m it te d un de r th e res id ua l

ex cep ti on to th e h ears ay

rul e. Tha t ex cep ti on pro vi de s as fol lo ws:

Und er th e fo ll owi ng ci rcu m st an ces , a he ars ay st at em en t is no t ex cl ud ed by th e ru le ag ai ns t he ars ay ev en if th e s ta te m en t is no t sp eci fic al ly

co ve red by a hear sa y

ex cep ti on in Ru le 80 3 o r 80 4:

(1 ) th e st at em en t h a s eq ui va le nt ci rcu m st an ti al gu aran te es of

tru st wor th in es s;

(2 ) it is off

ered as e vi de nc e o f a m at eri al fact ;

(3 ) it is mor e p r o b a t i v e on th e po in t fo r wh ic h it is of fe re d th an an

y

ot he r evi d en ce th at th e pr op on en t ca n ob ta in th ro ug h re as on ab le ef fo rt s ; an d

(4 ) ad m i t t i ng it wil l be st se rv e th e pu rp os es of th es e ru le s an d th e in te res ts of ju st ic e.

Fed

. R. Evi d. 80 7( a) (em

ph as is ad de d)

. W e are un ab le to ev al ua te whe th er Gol li he r's

e-m ai ls sa ti sf

y th es e req ui rem en ts be cau se Gol l i h e r ha s no t pr es en te d th ei r act ua l

su bs ta nc e in an y m an ne r, ei th er by rep ro du ci ng th em in th e br ie fs or ap pe nd ix or by

pr ov id in g reco rd ci ta ti on s to th em

. The on ly reco rd ci ta ti on th at Gol li he r pr ov id es is

to th e pr et ria l co nf

eren ce whe re he as ke d th e co ur t to ad m it th e e-m ai ls an d th e co ur t

ex cl ud ed th em . Gol li he r sh ou ld ha ve , at t ha t t im e, co m pl ie d wi th Ru le 10 3( a)(2 ) of

-7

-th e Fed eral Ru le s of Evi de nc e by " in fo rm [in g] t he co ur t of [th e e

- mail s'] s ub st an ce

b y an of fer of pr oo f." W it ho ut an of fer of pr oo f to pr es erv e in th e reco rd th e

su bs ta nc e of th e ex cl ud ed ev id en c e , G o l li he r's arg um en ts are le ft un su pp or te d an d

u np ers ua si ve

. Fo r ex am

pl e, Gol li he r as se rts wit ho ut an y ci ta ti on to th e reco rd t h a t

th es e e-m ai ls are m or e pr o b a t iv e th an ot he r ev id en ce un de r th e th ird pr on g of Ru le

80 7. Bu t we ha ve no way of ev al ua t i n g w h e t h e r th ey are pr ob at iv e at al l, le t al on e

whe th er th ei r pr ob at iv e ch arac te r ou twei gh ed ot he r fo rm s of av ai la bl e ev id en ce su ch

as Gol li he r ' s o wn vo lu nt ary te st im on y

. Acco rd in gl y , we de cl in e to ov ert ur n th e

di st ric t co ur t's ex cl us io n of th es e e-m ai ls be cau se Gol li he r ha s fai le d to ad he re to th e

req ui rem en ts of R ul e 2 8( a)(8 )(A) o f th e Fed eral Ru le s o f App el la te Pro ced ur e.

C. Th e Ju ry 's Qu es ti on

Dur in g jury de li be rat io ns , th e fo rep ers on se nt a no t e t o th e co ur t ex pr es si ng

co nf us io n abo ut whe th er the ev id en ce sh owe d th at Bo bb i was 13 or 14

. In th e no te

, th e fo rep ers on ob se rv ed th at do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce sh owe d t h a t sh e was 13 bu t

te st im on y ha d in di cat ed th at sh e was 14 . The co ur t re pl ie d, i ns tru ct in g t he juro rs to

rel y up on th ei r own reco ll ect io n. Gol li he r arg ue s th at it was pl ai n erro r fo r th e co ur t

no t to of fer th e ju r o rs th e op po rtu ni ty to rev ie w th e rel ev an t po rti on s of th e tri al

tra ns cri pt du rin g th ei r de li be rat io ns as pa rt of it s su pp le m en ta l in st ru ct io n. W e

di sa gr ee.

Bec au se Gol li he r di d no t o b je c t to th e co ur t's su pp le m en ta l in st ru ct io n, we

rev ie w fo r pl ai n erro r. Uni te d St at es v. Han se n , 79 1 F.3 d 86 3, 87 0 (8 t h Ci r. 20 15 )
(ci ti ng Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 30 (d ), 52 (b )). Und er th is st an da rd

, Gol li he r m us t sh ow "(1 ) an

erro r, (2 ) th at was pl ai n, (3 ) [th at ] affe ct s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s, an d (4 ) th e erro r se rio us ly

affe ct s t h e f

ai rn es s, in te gr it y or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs ." Id

. (q uo ta ti on s an d c it at io ns om it te d)

.

W e ha ve he ld th at "[o ]nly if it can be de m on st rat ed th at th e fai lu re to pe rm it th e

read in g of req ue st ed te st im on y crea te d un fai rn es s to th e d efen da nt is th e de fen da nt

-8

-en ti tl ed to ha ve th e jury in fo rm ed as a m at te r of rig ht ." Uni te d St at es v. Bas sl er ,

65 1 F.2 d 60 0, 60 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 81 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Gol li he r al le ge s th at th e

im po rta nc e of th e su bjec t m at te r a b ou t whi ch th e jury ex pr es se d co nf us io n ren de rs

th e co ur t's fai lu re to of

fer th e tra ns cri pt to th e jury un fai r. The re is no do ub t th at th e jury's co nc lu si on th at Bo bb i was 13 in st ead of 14 h a d a s ig ni fic an t im pa ct on hi s

se nt en ce. Bu t th at do es no t m ak e th e di st ric t co ur t's fai lu re to of fer th e tri al tra ns cri pt 2

to th e jury so m e h o w e rro ne ou s or pr ejud ic ia ll y un fai r. Gol li he r ha s pr es en te d no

ev id en ce fro m th e tri al tra ns cri pt in di cat i n g t h a t Bo bb i was act ua ll y 14

. The

go ve r n men t's br ie f qu ot es se ve n ex am pl es of tri al te st im on y su gg es ti ng th at Bo bb i

was 13

, no t 14

. Pu t si m

pl y , Gol li he r ha s fai le d to m ak e th e req ui red sh owi ng th at th e

co ur t's su pp le m en ta l i ns tru ct io n c on st it ut ed an erro r—p la in or o th erwi se

.

D. Pro se cu to ri al

Mis co nd uc t

Last ly, Gol li he r arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t cou rt pl ai nl y erre d b y fai li ng to st rik e

al le ge d pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t in th e pr os ecu to r's st at em en ts to th e jury. Fi rs t, he

arg ue s th at th e pr os e c u t o r m is st at ed th e la w of en tra pm en t by rep eat ed ly us in g th e ph ras e "n ob od y fo rced hi m to do it ." Seco nd , h e arg ue s th at th e pr os ecu to r to ld th e jury th at th e go ve rn m en t di d no t ha ve to pr ov e th at Gol li he r in te nd ed to co m m it th e

cri m e. Thi rd

, he arg ue s th at th e pr os ecu to r im pr op erl y vo uc he d fo r Gol li he r's gu il t by

us in g th e pe rs on al pr on ou ns I an d we

. Our rev ie w is fo r pl ai n erro r be cau se Gol li he r

di d no t ob ject to an y of th es e st at em en ts

. Se e Han se n , 79 1 F.3 d at 87 0 (ci ti ng Fed

. R.

Cri m . P. 30 (d ), 52 (b )).

1. Mis st at emen t o

f t he La w o

f En tr ap men t

Gol li he r fir st arg ue s th at th e pr os ecu to r m is st at ed th e la w of en tra pm en t by

e q u a ti ng pe rs ua si on wit h fo rce. Dur in g hi s cl os in g arg um en t, th e pr os ecu to r s a i d

,

The go ve rn m en t ch arg ed Gol li he r wit h vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 15 91

. Und er 2

th at se ct io n, a def

en da nt 's m in im

um sen te nc e in crea se s fr om

10 y ears to 15 y ears if
th e m in or was b el ow ag e 1 4.

-9

-" Th e g o v e r nm en t pr ov ed be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at no bo dy fo rced hi m to do

it

. . . . The go ve rn m en t ha s to pr ov e on e o f t h e s e t w o th in gs

. Not bo th

, bu t th e

ev id en ce sh ows th at he wil li ng ly di d it an d th e ev id en ce sh ows th at no bo dy fo rced

hi m to do it ." Gol l i h e r r e a s o ns th at th e pr os ecu to r's st at em en ts were im pr op er. W e

ag ree. Nev ert he le ss , we affi rm be cau se th es e st at em en ts were ha rm le ss in li gh t of th e

co ur t's co rrec t i ns tru ct io ns to th e jury.

The di st ric t co ur t ga ve th e fo ll owi ng jury in st ru ct io n on th e la w of en tra pm en t:

One of th e is su es i n t h i s cas e is whe th er th e de fen da nt was

en tra pp ed

. The pr os ecu ti on ha s th e bu rd en of pr ov in g be y on d a

reas on ab le do ub t th at th e de fen da nt was no t en tra pp ed [b ecau se ] ei th er:

1. The de fen da nt was wil li ng to co m m it th e c r i me o f se x
tra ffi ck in g of a ch il d be fo re he was ap p r o a c h ed or co nt act ed by
la w enf or cem en t ag en ts or s om eo ne act in g fo r th e g ov ern m en t.

Or 2. The go ve rn m en t or so m eo ne act in g fo r th e go ve rn m en t di d

no t pe rs ua de or ta lk t h e de fe nd an t in to co mmit ti ng th e cr ime of

se x t raff ic ki ng of a ch il d.

If y ou fin d th at th e pr os ecu ti on pr ov ed at le as t on e of th es e two
th in gs be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t, th en y ou m us t reject th e de fen da nt 's
cl ai m of en tra pm en t. If y ou fin d th e pr os ecu ti on fai le d to pr ov e at le as t

on e of th es e two th in gs be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t, th en y ou m us t fin d
th e d efen da nt no t g ui lt y

.

(Em ph asis ad de d.) The re is a di sc rep an cy be twee n th e la w of en tra pm en t as in st ru ct ed
by t h e c o u r t an d as rep res en te d by th e pr os ecu to r. The se co nd pr on g of th e

en tra pm en t in st ru ct io n req ui red th e go ve rn m en t to pr ov e th at it di d no t "p ers ua de or

ta lk th e de fen da nt in to co m m it ti ng th e cri m e." B u t t h e pr os ecu to r eq ua te d th is

st an da rd wit h so m et hi ng ak in to arm twi st in g or fo rce. The pr os ecu t o r s a i d

, "Th e

go ve rn m en t h as to pro ve on e o f th es e two th in gs ," "t ha t t he de fen da nt was wil li ng "

-1 0-o r " t h a t n o bo dy fo rced hi m to do it ." Su ch a di sc rep an cy am ou nt s to m or e th an

in art fu l reci ta ti on of th e st an da rd ; it ero de d th e pr es um pt io n of in no cen ce by lo weri ng

th e go ve rn m en t's bu rd en of p ro of

. Se e Kel lo gg

v. Sk on , 17 6 F .3d 44 7, 4 51 (8t h Cir.

19 99 ).

Bu t im

pr op er st at eme n t s a l o ne do no t warra nt a ne w tri al un de r pl ai n- erro r

rev ie w. "In de te rm in in g whe th er th e pr os ecu to r's arg um en t ren de red th e tri al un fai r,

we co ns id er th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces ." Id

. (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. W he re th e co ur t

pr op erl y in st ru ct s th e jury, de fen se co un se l rei nf or ces th e co ur t's in st ru c t i o n , an d

th ere is no ob

jecti on at tri al

, an im

pr op er st at em en t of th e la w by th e pr os ecu to r do es

no t un de rm in e th e fai rn es s of th e tri al

. Id

. In th is cas e, Gol li he r ha s no t as se rte d th at

th e co ur t im

pr op erl y in st ru ct ed th e jury. In de ed

, hi s tri al co un se l op en ly ap pr ov ed of

th e in st ru ct io ns , de sc rib in g th em as "jus t won de rfu l." And he ad m on is he d th e jury no t

to "u nd eres ti m at e th e wor k t ha t wen t i nt o t ha t b y th e Co ur t an d e ve ry

bo dy el se

. . . . [T]his is no t a ta lk in g po in ts m em o. Thi s is th e la w an d th e o n l y w a y th is syste m

wor ks is if you f

ol lo w th e la w and fol lo w th at oa th ."

Mo reo ve r, th e ev id en ce in th is cas e sh ows th at Gol li he r was no t pe rs ua de d or

ta lk ed in to ob ta in in g 13 -y ear- ol d Bo bb i fo r se x. Gol li he r dr ov e to th e pr ed et erm in ed

lo cat io n, whe re he ex pe ct ed to m eet Bo bb i's pi m p. He go t ou t of hi s car an d in to th e

un de rco ve r of

fic er's car. The un de rco ve r of fic er as ke d Gol li he r wha t he was lo ok in g

fo r. Gol li he r rep li ed , "Pro ba bl y ha lf [ an ho ur ]. " When th e u nd erco ve r of fic er as ke d

Gol li he r if he ha d th e m on ey , Gol li he r pu ll ed cas h ou t of hi s po ck et

. Fi na ll y , Gol li he r

to ld th e un de rco ve r of

fic er, "I am

no t go in g to hu rt her

. I am no t go in g to sc are her

. I am a real ge nt le gu y ." In sh or t, th e pr os ecu to r's im pr op er sta te m en t of the la w was

ha rm le ss be cau se th e ev id en ce in di cat es th at Gol li he r ne ed ed no pe rs ua si on

. He di d

no t ne ed to be ta lk ed in to an y th in g; he wil lfu ll y so ug ht to ob ta in 13 -y ear- ol d Bo bb i

fo r se x.

2. In te nt

Gol li he r ne xt arg ue s t ha t t he pr os ecu to r rem ov ed in te nt fro m th e el em en ts of

th e cri m e. He po in ts to two st at em en ts by t he pr os ecu to r. Fi rs t, th e pr os ecu to r sa id

,

-1 1-"We do n't ha ve to pr ov e th at he wou ld ha ve do ne it ; we ha ve to pr ov e th at he to ok a

su bs ta nt ia l st ep to en ga ge in co m m erci al se x tra ffi ck in g, no t th at at th e en d of th e da y

th at was wha t he wan te d." Seco nd

, th e pr os ecu to r sa id

, "It do es n't m at te r whe th er or

no t he was go in g— wha t he was go in g to do at hi s ho us e." Gol li he r arg ue s th at th es e

st at em en ts are a m is st at em en t o f th e la w. W e d is ag ree.

The co nt ex t of th es e st at em en ts m ak es cl ear th at th e pr os ecu to r was di sc us si ng

th e su bs ta nt ia l st ep req ui red to fin d at te m pt

. In th at co nt ex t, th es e st at em en ts were no t pl ai nl y im

pr op er. And be cau se th e co ur t pr op erl y in st ru ct ed th e jury wit h resp ect to

th e req ui red el em en t of in te nt

, an y i mp r o p rie ty was ha rm le ss

. Se e Kel lo gg , 17 6 F .3d at 4 51

.

3. Vou ch in g

Gol li he r fi na ll y

arg ue s t ha t t he pr os ecu to r im pr op erl y vo uc he d fo r Gol li he r's

gu il t. He po in ts to th e cl os in g li ne s of th e pr os ecu to r's su m m at io n an d reb ut ta l whe re

th e pr os ecu to r m ad e th e fo ll owi ng two st at em en ts us in g th e fir st -p ers on pr on ou ns we

an d I : "[W] e are co nf

id en t a s yo u d e l ib erat e, th at y ou wil l ag ree th e de fen da nt is

gu il ty be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t." And

, "I as k y ou to fin d h im " gu il ty. Gol li he r

arg ue s th at th es e st at em en ts sh ow th at th e p r o s e c u to r "cl earl y in ject[ ed ] pe rs on al

be li efs in to th e p ro ces s." W e d is ag ree.

"Al th ou gh th e us e of [th e fir st pe rs o n b y a pr os ecu to r du rin g arg um en ts ] ha s

be en of te n cri ti ci zed (an d di sc ou rag ed ) by th is co ur t an d ot he rs , it i s n o t a l w a ys

im pr op er." Uni te d St at es v. Ben tl ey , 56 1 F.3 d 80 3, 81 1 (8 th C i r

. 20 09 ) (ci ta ti on s

om it te d)

. "It is on ly im

pr op er whe n it su g ge st s th at th e go ve rn m en t ha s sp eci al

kn owl ed ge of ev id en ce no t pr es en te d to th e jury, carr ie s an im pl i e d g u a r a nt ee of

tru th fu ln es s, or exp res se s a pe rs on al op in io n ab ou t cred ib il it y ." Id

. at 81 2 (cit at io ns

om it te d)

. Mo reo ve r, we ha ve he ld t h a t p a s s i n g us e of th e fir st pe rs on "i s no t pl ai n

erro r if it is us ed 'to refe r th e jury to th e go ve rn m en t's ev id en ce an d to su m m ari ze th e

go ve rn m en t's cas e ag ai ns t t he de fen da nt s.'" Id

. (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

-1 2-In th is cas e, t h e s t a t e m en ts of whi ch Gol li he r co m pl ai ns do no t in di cat e

an y th in g ab ou t th e pe rs on al be li ef of th e pr os ecu to r. In bo th cas es , th e pr os ecu to r is

ur gi ng th e ju r y t o c on si de r th e ev id en ce an d th e el em en ts of th e cri m e an d to fin d

Gol li he r gu il ty. Acco rd in gl y , th es e st at em en ts were n ot pl ai nl y im pr op er.

III. Co nc lu si on

Fo r th es e rea so ns , we affi rm Gol li he r's co nv ic ti on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 3-