[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-13733

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICHARD FRANKLIN JENSEN, III, 

a.k.a. Frank, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cr-00068-SCB-TGW-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 1 of 25
2 Opinion of the Court 20-13733

Before JORDAN, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Jensen was convicted at trial of attempting to entice 

a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 2422(b), and attempting 

to transfer obscene material to a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

section 1470. On appeal, Jensen challenges the district court’s exclusion of chat evidence supporting his roleplay defense theory, as 

well as the jury instructions. After careful review, we affirm his 

convictions.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

Motherless.com is a website where users can send each 

other messages and pictures about their various nontraditional sexual interests. Department of Homeland Security Special Agent 

Terri Lynn Botterbusch had a profile on the site so she could catch

people seeking children for sex. Under the username “Rachelb,” 

she pretended to be a “family fun”-loving, “open minded” mother 

named “Rachel,” with a twelve-year-old daughter named “Nicky.”

Under his username “Hotdirtystud,” Jensen messaged “a lot 

of different users” on Motherless.com about various deviant sexual 

interests. His profile bio said that he was interested in sexually “taboo,” “kinky,” and “dirty” topics. 

On May 23, 2015, Jensen began chatting with “Rachel.” He

said that he loved “role play and playing fun, naughty games with 

younger partners,” and that his sexual interests were many and 

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 2 of 25
20-13733 Opinion of the Court 3

“depend[ed] on and varie[d] with the age and experience of [his] 

partner.” When “Rachel” said she was looking for an experienced 

man to teach “Nicky” about sex, Jensen responded that he was 

“definitely open to doing that” and that it “sound[ed] like it would 

be a great experience for both of [them].” He said he had “taught” 

and “trained” two other girls “in the art of pleasing a man” and was 

a “very good teacher” who would “go slow” and make “Nicky”

“feel comfortable.” 

Jensen suggested that they move their conversation to another chat platform because Motherless.com “frowned upon” 

what they were discussing, but he kept using the site to message 

“Rachel.” He said he had “some really good ideas that would be 

great to get things started.” He wanted to make arrangements “in 

the next month or so.” Jensen proposed approaching “Nicky” as 

“mommy’s friend” and babysitting her for a few days. He assured 

“Rachel” that he planned to make “Nicky” “feel good” during sex. 

As to the frequency of his expected encounters with “Nicky,” Jensen explained that “it couldn’t be a one-time thing” because “[g]irls 

form attachments to a guy they have their first experiences with, 

and [Jensen] wouldn’t feel right just spending a few days or a week 

with her [and] then leaving and not seeing her again.” He also 

wanted “Nicky” to have a way to communicate with him and see 

him again after their sexual encounter. 

Jensen sent “Rachel” a photo of his face and his reflection in 

a mirror showing his naked back and behind, and he asked for a 

photo of “Nicky.” “Rachel” gave Jensen her Gmail address and 

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 3 of 25
4 Opinion of the Court 20-13733

Jensen emailed her to introduce himself (as “Frank”). Jensen asked 

for more information about “Nicky” and for “a pic or two of her.” 

“Rachel” said that “Nicky” liked his photo and asked for more photos of him. She sent Jensen three photos of “Nicky”: two face shots 

and one of her practicing gymnastics in a leotard. Jensen replied 

that he couldn’t wait to meet “Nicky” and get to know her “very 

intimately.” He told “Rachel” that “Nicky” had “a very sexy body 

in the gymnastic pic,” and he “would like to see more of it if 

[‘Nicky’] want[ed] to share some sexier pics with [him].” 

Jensen kept asking for photos of “Nicky” and discussing his 

detailed plans to meet her in Tampa for their sexual “train[ing].” 

On June 1, 2015, “Rachel” asked him if he sent pictures of himself 

“for Nicky,” and Jensen in response attached six photos and offered 

to “send [‘Nicky’] more” if “Nicky” wanted. Two of the photos

depicted Jensen clothed, one showed his face and upper body as he 

flexed, and three displayed Jensen’s erect penis. That same day, 

Jensen emailed “Nicky” directly to introduce himself before his 

visit. 

Jensen then asked “Rachel” for more pictures of “Nicky” “in 

a bikini or just bra and panties” and for a photo of “Rachel” and 

“Nicky” together to verify their identities and relationship. “Rachel” asked Jensen if he was “having second thoughts,” and he replied that he was not and “definitely want[ed] to do this.” Jensen

asked if the next week would be too soon to get started. 

Jensen texted “Nicky” at her direct phone number and 

wrote, “I may be coming down to see you next week so we can 

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 4 of 25
20-13733 Opinion of the Court 5

have fun together and start teaching you about sex.” He described

how he would “show [her] and teach [her] all about [his] penis” and 

the “things guys can do to girls to feel good.” He also told “Rachel”

in graphic detail about what he planned to do with “Nicky.” 

Eventually, Jensen said he needed “Nicky” to appear naked 

on a webcam “for [his] own protection” because the sexual 

“train[ing]” they were planning was “very illegal.” He reasoned 

that a law enforcement officer would have to refuse. When “Rachel” refused, Jensen protested that he was taking a “huge risk.” 

After she held firm, he apologized and promised to book his flight 

that day. 

On the morning of June 4, 2015, Jensen again acknowledged 

that what he was planning was “very illegal,” but he was “very 

happy and willing to do it.” But, less than a half hour later, he contacted “Rachel” with a surprising claim. Jensen said that his messages had been “just fantasy play” and he was not sexually interested in young girls; rather, he had known all along that there was

no real child. Later that day, Jensen called Agent Botterbusch’s office and cell (as himself, not “Frank”) and left a voicemail for the 

agent (not “Rachel”) claiming that he was “a researcher and author 

and attorney in Atlanta . . . working on a book.” His messages, he 

said, had just been research. Jensen asked if he could interview her 

for the book and if she would return his call. At trial, Jensen conceded that there was no book. 

Agent Botterbusch returned Jensen’s call and recorded the 

conversation. Jensen told her that he had uncovered her true 

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 5 of 25
6 Opinion of the Court 20-13733

identity when he performed a “reverse image search” on her photos and found a newspaper article about a previous child-exploitation case that identified her by name. 

The police searched Jensen’s home in Atlanta and seized his 

computer and smartphone. An analysis of the devices showed that

Jensen used the computer to visit pornographic webpages on 

Motherless.com with names like “[t]een sibling incest,” “[d]addy 

breeding,” and “[f]ather daughter anal sex.” Jensen used the 

smartphone to visit profiles on Kik, a chat application often used to

“trade child pornography” and contact children for purposes of

child-exploitation. The Kik profiles Jensen visited appeared to belong mainly to young girls. 

At trial, Jensen testified that his chats with “Rachel” were 

just a type of roleplay called “age play,” in which an adult pretends

to be a child. He said that he used Motherless.com to have “fantasy 

chats” with people about “deviant” sexual topics like incest, rape, 

urination, defecation, bondage, sadomasochism, and sex with children. Jensen maintained that he had no sexual interest in children 

and knew all along that “Nicky” was not a real child. To corroborate his roleplay defense, Jensen entered into evidence detailed 

chats between him and another user on Motherless.com in which

he described an incestuous encounter he had as a child with his sister and cousin. Jensen’s sisters testified that the alleged incest never 

happened.

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 6 of 25
20-13733 Opinion of the Court 7

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

The Midtrial Bench Conferences About the Chat Evidence

The main issue in this appeal involves a chat log that Jensen 

tried to get into evidence. The forty-four-page chat log contained 

over a hundred chats between Jensen and other Motherless.com 

users, including “Rachel.” It also included the incest chats admitted

during Jensen’s defense case. Most of the chats were sent in May

2015. 

On the first day of trial, the government sought to admit a 

list of every webpage on Motherless.com that Jensen had visited. 

Jensen argued that if the webpage list was admitted, the rule of 

completeness required the district court to also admit the chat log. 

The district court reserved ruling on both evidentiary issues. 

On the second day of trial, after the government admitted

screenshots from “Rachel’s” Motherless.com profile, a Motherless.com chat from Jensen to “Rachel,” and the transcript of the 

recorded call between Special Agent Botterbusch and Jensen, Jensen argued that those exhibits opened the door to introducing the 

chat logs during the agent’s cross-examination. The government 

responded that the rule of completeness did not apply, and that the 

chats were hearsay. Jensen replied that the chats weren’t hearsay 

because he offered them to show his state of mind. Jensen also 

argued that the exclusion of the chats would prohibit him from presenting his defense theory (which he had not disclosed by this point

of the trial). 

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 7 of 25
8 Opinion of the Court 20-13733

The district court concluded that the chats weren’t admissible under the rule of completeness and were hearsay. The district 

court told Jensen that it needed more information about his defense theory before it could determine whether the state of mind

hearsay exception applied. Jensen could testify about the chats, the 

district court said, and attempt to introduce them during his casein-chief. Jensen gave the district court the chats during the bench

conference, but took them back when it was over. 

On the third day of trial, before Jensen’s sisters testified, he 

told the district court that he planned to ask them about the chats. 

The government objected that the chats were hearsay and were

also “unfairly prejudicial” and “extremely confusing” under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. In response, Jensen “let the cat out of 

the bag” and disclosed his roleplay defense theory. He argued that 

“[a]ll his chats and things that he was doing” online showed he was 

just “looking to role[]play” and “was not looking to have sex with 

a [twelve]-year-old girl.” Jensen said his sisters would testify that 

the alleged incest never happened, which would undermine the 

government’s proof of his intent and rebut the government’s rule 

404(b) evidence (the pornographic webpages Jensen looked at on

Motherless.com and the profiles of minors that he viewed on Kik). 

The district court ruled that Jensen could ask his sisters 

about the incestuous activities, but if the defense wanted to introduce the chats they would have “to come in through” Jensen himself. The district court reserved ruling on whether the chats were 

admissible through Jensen. As before, Jensen gave the district court 

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 8 of 25
20-13733 Opinion of the Court 9

the chats during the bench conference, but took them back when 

it ended. 

Finally, on the fourth day of trial Jensen sought to admit all 

of the chats, arguing that they corroborated his “theory of the case” 

and showed he was just engaging in a “fantasy.” The district court 

allowed into evidence the incest chats discussed above, but excluded the rest of the chats because they were hearsay, because 

performing a hearsay analysis on each chat to determine whether 

the state of mind exception applied would take too long, and because some of the chats weren’t in the same “time frame” as Jensen’s chats with “Rachel.” The district court said that if Jensen had

turned over the chats earlier, it “might have been able to go 

through [them] and say what was admissible and what was not.” 

Jensen responded that he had provided the district court with the 

chat logs earlier during the previous bench conferences. The district court explained that it didn’t have a chance to inspect every 

chat because Jensen had taken the chat logs back. 

The Charge Conference

Jensen was indicted on two counts. Count one charged him 

with “using a facility and means of interstate commerce, that is, a 

computer,” to attempt to entice a minor to engage in unlawful sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 2422(b). And count 

two charged him with “using any means or facility of interstate 

commerce, that is, a computer,” to attempt to transfer obscene material to a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1470. 

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 9 of 25
10 Opinion of the Court 20-13733

At the charge conference, the district court addressed the 

government’s proposed jury instructions. The instructions identified a “cellular telephone” and “the Internet”—and not a “computer”—as the facilities of interstate commerce for both counts. 

The instruction also said that, as to count one, the government had 

to prove that Jensen “intended to engage in some form of unlawful 

sexual activity with [a minor] and knowingly took some action that 

was a substantial step toward bringing about or engaging in that 

sexual activity.” 

The district court “[ran] through [the instructions] one at a 

time” with the parties. The district court then asked Jensen’s counsel whether he “had an opportunity to look at the instructions.” 

Counsel replied: “I have. No objection.” The final jury instructions were consistent with the government’s proposed jury instructions. 

The jury convicted Jensen of attempted enticement of a minor and attempted transfer of obscene material to a minor. Jensen 

was sentenced to 151 months’ imprisonment for count one and a 

concurrent 120 months’ imprisonment for count two. This is his 

appeal.

DISCUSSION 

Jensen brings three claims on appeal. First, he argues that 

the district court abused its discretion when it excluded the Motherless.com chat logs. Second, Jensen maintains that the exclusion 

of the chats violated his constitutional right to present a defense. 

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 10 of 25
20-13733 Opinion of the Court 11

And third, he contends that the district court plainly erred as to the 

jury instructions when it constructively amended the interstate 

commerce element for both counts and misstated the intent and 

substantial step elements for count one. 

The Excluded Chat Evidence

Jensen argues that the district court abused its discretion by 

excluding the chat logs he wanted to use to bolster his roleplay defense. This was error, he maintains, because the chats either “were 

not hearsay” or, if they were hearsay, satisfied the “state of mind” 

hearsay exception.1

 Jensen also arguesthat because he tried several 

times to get the chats admitted into evidence during the midtrial 

bench conferences, there was “no reason for the district court to 

refrain from reviewing” the chats “one at a time” to determine 

their admissibility. 

We assume, without deciding, that the district court erred 

in excluding the chats. But “[e]ven if the ruling was an abuse of 

discretion, it will not result in a reversal of the conviction if the error was harmless.” United States v. Docampo, 573 F.3d 1091, 1096 

(11th Cir. 2009); United States v. Williams, 731 F.3d 1222, 1236 

1

Jensen doesn’t argue on appeal that the chats should have come into evidence 

under the rule of completeness, so he has forfeited this claim. See Sapuppo v. 

Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (“A party fails to 

adequately brief a claim when he does not plainly and prominently raise it, for 

instance by devoting a discrete section of his argument to [it].” (cleaned up)). 

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 11 of 25
12 Opinion of the Court 20-13733

(11th Cir. 2013) (assuming, “without deciding,” that the district 

court erred, and affirming because “any error by the district court 

during jury selection was harmless”). We will not disturb Jensen’s 

convictions because the error of excluding the chats, if any, was 

harmless.

Under harmless error review, we ask whether an evidentiary

error “had a substantial influence on the outcome of a case or left 

grave doubt as to whether [it] affected the outcome of a case.” 

United States v. Henderson, 409 F.3d 1293, 1300 (11th Cir. 2005)

(cleaned up). We will not reverse a conviction “if the error had no 

substantial influence on the verdict and there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict apart from the error.” United States 

v. Martinez, 700 F.2d 1358, 1367 (11th Cir. 1983).

Jensen argues that the exclusion of the chats was harmful

because they “would have directly”—and convincingly—“contradicted” the government’s position that he thought “Nicky” was 

real, and because the chats that the district court did allow into evidence failed to “demonstrate the depth and extent” of his online 

“roleplaying.” We disagree for two reasons. 

First, the exclusion of the chats did not have a substantial 

influence on the outcome of the case. The chats were either irrelevant, outright incriminating, or cumulative.

As to the irrelevant parts of the chats, many of them had 

nothing to do with Jensen’s roleplay defense. Large portions of the

chats included: (1) alerts from Motherless.com informing Jensen 

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 12 of 25
20-13733 Opinion of the Court 13

that his “uploads” had been approved; (2) dozens of notifications

awarding Jensen “credits”2 for his posts; and (3) numerous alerts 

welcoming Jensen to various Motherless.com “groups,” such as

“Young Teen Lovers” and “West Georgia Sluts.” These chats had 

no bearing on Jensen’s claim that he knew “Nicky” wasn’t a real 

child and was just roleplaying. They were therefore irrelevant. 

The exclusion of irrelevant evidence did not have a substantial influence on the outcome of the case. See United States v. Anderson, 

872 F.2d 1508, 1519 (11th Cir. 1989) (“[I]t is axiomatic that a defendant’s right to present a full defense does not entitle him to place 

before the jury irrelevant . . . evidence.”).

As to the incriminating parts of the chats, one of the 

“groups” that Jensen joined in May 2015 was called “Young Teen 

Lovers.” Jensen’s membership in this group contradicted his testimony that he was “not at all” interested in sex with minors. And 

in numerous chats with other users, Jensen expressed an interest in 

meeting them in person. He told multiple users that he owned a 

house in, or otherwise often visited, their area. Jensen told one 

person that “I see we are both in Georgia” and suggested they 

“have some fun together.” Jensen’s proximity to other users was 

irrelevant if he merely intended to chat with them online; it was 

only relevant if he was seeking an in-person encounter. The 

2

Jensen’s counsel explained during one of the midtrial bench conferences that 

Motherless.com had an “award system” giving users “credit[s]” for “essentially 

being dirty on the Internet.” 

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 13 of 25
14 Opinion of the Court 20-13733

exclusion of evidence corroborating Jensen’s sexual interest in minors and his desire to meet people he met online for sexual encounters did not have a substantial influence on the outcome of the case. 

If anything, the exclusion of this evidence helped Jensen.

As to the cumulative parts of the chats, they included Jensen’s Motherless.com profile page, in which he expressed his “love” 

for everything “taboo and dirty” and his desire to “meet another 

[M]otherless member.” They also included Jensen’s conversations

on Motherless.com with “Rachel.” This evidence had already been 

admitted during the government’s case. 

The chat logs were also cumulative to Jensen’s trial testimony. He testified that his pornography addiction led him to 

Motherless.com. He said that the website had a “membership 

community” that he “enjoyed chatting with” because the other users “were just as deviant and disgusting as the pornography [he] 

was watching.” According to Jensen, he engaged in “role[]play” 

and “fantasy chats” with people on the website. The “more deviant, the more depraved, the more messed up” the fantasies were 

the better, Jensen said, because he “could not have a normal fantasy 

chat and get excited.” 

To support his roleplay defense, Jensen described his chats 

in detail. He explained that he was “communicating with a lot of 

different users on” Motherless.com and not just with “Rachel.” 

Jensen said that he would “reach out to someone based on whatever interest they had” in their profile, and there “was a lot of incest 

chat” and roleplay of various forms, like “age play” where 

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 14 of 25
20-13733 Opinion of the Court 15

“someone likes to pretend to be a child.” At the same time that he 

was chatting with “Rachel,” he said, he was telling other “people 

online on the same website that [he] [was] having sex with [his] 

sister,” even though his incest claims were made up. The excluded 

chats where Jensen shared his deviant sexual fantasies with other

users were cumulative to Jensen’s testimony describing those

chats.

Finally, the excluded chats were cumulative to the chats that

the district court allowed into evidence. The jury saw two pages 

of the chats, which consisted of a lengthy message Jensen sent to 

another user describing in graphic detail various incestuous sexual 

encounters Jensen allegedly had with his sister and cousin when 

they were children. To show that this was just fantasy roleplay, 

Jensen and his sisters testified that no incest had actually occurred. 

Critically, the chats about Jensen’s incestuous encounters were far 

more elaborate than the other chats excluded from evidence. 

Thus, the jury saw the chats that best supported Jensen’s roleplay 

defense—and nevertheless rejected his defense. 

In short, the excluded chats were cumulative to the conversations between Jensen and “Rachel,” cumulative to Jensen’s trial 

testimony, and cumulative to the chats in evidence. The exclusion 

of cumulative evidence did not have a substantial influence on the 

outcome of the case. See Dallas v. Warden, 964 F.3d 1285, 1310 

(11th Cir. 2020) (“[N]o prejudice can result from the exclusion of 

cumulative evidence.” (citation omitted)).

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 15 of 25
16 Opinion of the Court 20-13733

Now for the second reason why the error, if any, in excluding the chats was harmless. Any error was harmless because there 

was more than enough evidence to support the verdict regardless 

of the alleged error. Jensen cannot establish harmful error in the 

face of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt. See United States 

v. Guzman, 167 F.3d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1999) (“Overwhelming 

evidence of guilt is one factor that may be considered in finding 

harmless error.”).

Most of the evidence in this case came from Jensen himself. 

He repeatedly messaged “Rachel” on Motherless.com, believing 

she was looking to teach her underage daughter “Nicky” about sex. 

Jensen was “definitely open to doing that” and thought it would be 

“a great experience.” He said that he had “trained” two other girls 

and would be a “very good teacher” for “Nicky.” As the plan for 

Jensen to “train” Nicky developed, he left no doubt about what he 

planned to do with “Nicky.” Jensen told “Rachel” that it was important for “Nicky” to learn how to “stroke and suck a cock,” how 

to “swallow cum,” and “of course how to fuck and get fucked.” He 

also said that he would “like to try kinkier more taboo things” with 

the child, like “anal play” and “water sports,” if “Rachel” thought 

“it would be good for her to learn stuff like that.” 

Jensen’s communications with “Rachel” were not limited to 

describing the sex acts that he fantasized about inflicting on 

“Nicky.” Rather, he made preparations to see “Nicky” in person to 

fulfill his desires. Jensen told “Rachel” that he wanted to see 

“Nicky” “in the next month or so.” He proposed to babysit “Nicky” 

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 16 of 25
20-13733 Opinion of the Court 17

as “mommy’s friend” as a prelude to sex. He emailed “Nicky” to 

introduce himself before his visit, and texted her that he “may be 

coming down to see [her] next week” to teach her about sex. In 

response to “Rachel’s” refusal to prove that “Nicky” was real by 

sending a photo of them together or letting her appear naked on a 

webcam, Jensen insisted that he “definitely want[ed] to do this” and 

promised to book his flight. The evidence showed that Jensen 

didn’t just fantasize about having sex with a child. He planned to 

make it happen.

Jensen also knew that what he was doing was wrong and 

illegal. He tried to convince “Rachel” to use a different chat platform because Motherless.com “frowned upon” what they were discussing. He asked for photos of her with “Nicky” and for “Nicky” 

to appear naked on camera for his “own protection” because he 

was taking a “huge risk” over their “very illegal” plan. Although 

Jenson acknowledged twice that his plan to have sex with a child 

was “very illegal,” he was still “very happy and willing to do it.” 

And several weeks after Jensen discovered who “Rachel” really 

was, he performed an internet search for “[h]ow to erase [a] hard 

drive.” These incriminating admissions and actions were direct 

proof of Jensen’s criminal intent, his sincere belief that Nicky was 

real, and his consciousness of guilt. See United States v. Borders,

693 F.2d 1318, 1324 (11th Cir. 1982) (“It is today universally conceded that the fact of an accused’s flight, escape from custody, resistance to arrest, concealment, assumption of a false name, and 

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 17 of 25
18 Opinion of the Court 20-13733

related conduct, are admissible as evidence of consciousness of

guilt, and thus of guilt itself.” (cleaned up)).

Jensen’s backpedaling after he discovered that “Rachel” was 

Special Agent Botterbusch further proved his guilt. “A false explanatory statement may be viewed by a jury as substantive evidence 

tending to prove guilt.” United States v. Eley, 723 F.2d 1522, 1525 

(11th Cir. 1984). Here, after discovering Special Agent Botterbusch’s real identity, Jensen told “Rachel” that his messages were 

“just fantasy play” and he knew that “Nicky” wasn’t real. Jensen 

then called Special Agent Botterbusch and claimed to be an “author” “working on a book.” He maintained that his chats with her 

were research and he wanted to interview her. But Jensen admitted at trial that there was no book. Jensen’s lies to explain his attempts to entice a minor further established his guilt. See United 

States v. Holbert, 578 F.2d 128, 130 (5th Cir. 1978) (“When a defendant voluntarily and intentionally offers an explanation and this 

explanation is later shown to be false, the jury may consider 

whether the circumstantial evidence points to a consciousness of 

guilt . . . .”).

The government’s rule 404(b) evidence was additional proof 

of Jensen’s criminal intent. A forensic analysis of Jensen’s devices 

revealed that he looked at pornography on Motherless.com with 

titles related to underaged girls like “[f]ather daughter anal sex.” 

Jensen also used Kik, a chat application associated with the child 

pornography trade, to look at profiles belonging to young girls. 

This collateral evidence showed that Jensen had the intent to 

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 18 of 25
20-13733 Opinion of the Court 19

commit the charged crimes. See United States v. Zapata, 139 F.3d 

1355, 1358 (11th Cir. 1998) (“A defendant who enters a not guilty 

plea makes intent a material issue which imposes a substantial burden on the government to prove intent, which it may prove by 

qualifying [r]ule 404(b) evidence . . . .”). 

Finally, Jensen testified at trial that he was engaging in 

roleplay and fantasy chats, that he did not believe that “Rachel” and 

“Nicky” were real, and that he had no sexual interest in children. 

“This unimpressive account of events by” Jensen “constitute[d]

substantive evidence of [his] guilt. This is so because a jury is free 

to disbelieve a defendant’s testimony and consider it as substantive 

evidence of the latter’s guilt.” See United States v. Rivera, 780 F.3d 

1084, 1098 (11th Cir. 2015). Given the implausibility of Jensen’s 

testimony, his disavowal of his research book, and the jury’s verdict 

of guilty, “one can reasonably infer that the jury so interpreted his 

testimony.” See id.

In sum, the evidence against Jensen was overwhelming. 

Overwhelming evidence of guilt, in turn, weighs against a finding 

of harmful error. Guzman, 167 F.3d at 1353; see also United States 

v. Phaknikone, 605 F.3d 1099, 1111 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Viewed in its 

totality, the evidence of [the defendant’s] guilt is overwhelming, 

and there is no reason to think that the [evidentiary error] had a 

substantial or injurious effect in influencing the jury.”). 

* * * *

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 19 of 25
20 Opinion of the Court 20-13733

Because excluding the chats did not have a substantial influence on the outcome of the case and because there was overwhelming evidence of Jensen’s guilt, we conclude that the error, if 

any, was harmless.

Jensen’s Right to Present a Defense

Jensen argues that, for three reasons, the exclusion of the 

chats also violated his constitutional right to present a defense under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. First, he contends that the 

excluded chats undermined the government’s proof that he “had 

the intent to commit the charged offenses” because they showed 

that Jensen was just engaging in “virtual fantasies.” Second, Jensen 

argues that he had a constitutional right to rebut the government’s 

rule 404(b) evidence—proof that Jensen (1) visited pornography on 

Motherless.com that was, in the district court’s words, “related to 

teens or young girls,” and (2) viewed the profiles of children on 

Kik—by showing “the ‘other side’” of his “online activities.” And 

third, Jensen argues that the excluded chats were necessary to place 

the government’s story in a “different light.” 

“Implicit in a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments is the right to present evidence 

in his or her favor.” United States v. Machado, 886 F.3d 1070, 1085

(11th Cir. 2018). “[T]wo considerations are appropriate in analyzing a defendant’s claim that his constitutional right to present a defense was violated: (1) whether the right was ‘actually violated,’

and (2) if so, ‘whether [the] error was ‘harmless beyond a 

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 20 of 25
20-13733 Opinion of the Court 21

reasonable doubt.’”

3 United States v. Akwuba, 7 F.4th 1299, 1312

(11th Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. Hurn, 368 F.3d 1359, 

1362–63 (11th Cir. 2004)). Where a defendant’s constitutional right 

to present a defense was not actually violated, “we need not reach 

the second step of this analysis.” Hurn, 368 F.3d at 1363.

Jensen’s constitutional claim fails because the district court 

did not actually violate his right to present a complete defense. 

Where the district court “permits a defendant to present the essence of [his] desired argument to the jury, [his] right to present a 

complete defense has not been prejudiced.” Akwuba, 7 F.4th at 

1312 (quoting United States v. Harris, 916 F.3d 948, 959 (11th Cir. 

2019)). That is what happened here.

Jensen testified about his defense theory at length, told the 

jury that he was just engaging in fantasy roleplay, and maintained 

that he did not believe that “Nicky” was a real child. Both of Jensen’s sisters testified that they never engaged in incest with him,

corroborating his theory that the things he said to other users on 

Motherless.com weren’t true. The defense also introduced into evidence Jensen’s lengthy chats about his supposed childhood 

3

The government argues that we should review Jensen’s constitutional claim 

for plain error because he did not argue that the exclusion of the chats would 

result “in a constitutional violation.” But Jensen did argue that the exclusion 

of the chats “prohibit[ed] [him] from pursuing [his] theory of defense.” We 

will assume, without deciding, that this objection was enough to preserve the 

constitutional claim. 

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 21 of 25
22 Opinion of the Court 20-13733

experiences with incest, giving the jury a concrete example of the

fictitious roleplaying Jensen sought out online. Finally, Jensen’s 

counsel began his closing argument by quoting the incest chats at 

length—the quote spans four pages of the trial transcript—to underscore the defense’s theory that everything Jensen told Special 

Agent Botterbusch was “complete and utter garbage.” 

The defense’s evidence and argument did the three things 

that Jensen hoped to achieve with the excluded chats. The evidence offered to support his roleplay defense—Jensen’s testimony, 

his sisters’ testimony, and the incest chats—undermined the government’s proof that Jensen intended to commit the offenses, rebutted the government’s rule 404(b) evidence, and placed the government’s case in a different light. Jensen wasn’t prevented from 

giving the jury a complete roleplay defense. The jury simply rejected his defense. See United States v. Stahlman, 934 F.3d 1199, 

1225–26 (11th Cir. 2019) (“[The defendant] protests that there is an 

innocent explanation for all of this conduct—namely, that the entire thing was a big misunderstanding, as he believed he was conversing with an adult couple as part of a fantasy role[]playing scenario, and not with the father of an actual [eleven]-year-old girl. 

The problem for [him] is that the jury was not required to accept 

this innocent explanation.”). 

Because the district court permitted Jensen “to present the 

essence of [his] desired argument to the jury, [his] right to present 

a complete defense” was not “prejudiced.” See Akwuba, 7 F.4th at 

1312. And because Jensen’s right to present a defense was not 

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 22 of 25
20-13733 Opinion of the Court 23

“actually violated,” the exclusion of the chats did not violate Jensen’s constitutional rights. See Hurn, 368 F.3d at 1362. We therefore need not proceed to the second step—harmless error review—

because there was no constitutional error. Id. at 1363.

The Jury Instructions

Finally, Jensen brings two challenges to the jury instructions. First, he argues that the district court plainly erred by constructively amending the interstate commerce element for both 

counts. The district court did so, Jensen contends, because the indictment charged him with violating the interstate commerce elements through his use of a “computer,” but the district court instructed the jury that it could convict Jensen for his use of a “cellular telephone” or the “Internet.” Second, Jensen argues that the 

district court plainly erred as to count one by misstating the intent 

and substantial step elements. We conclude that the error, if any, 

was invited by Jensen. 

“The doctrine of invited error is implicated when a party induces or invites the district court into making an error.” United 

States v. Stone, 139 F.3d 822, 838 (11th Cir. 1998). “Where a party 

invites error,” we are “precluded from reviewing that error on appeal.” United States v. Harris, 443 F.3d 822, 823–24 (11th Cir. 2006). 

Although “failing to object does not trigger the doctrine,” United 

States v. Dortch, 696 F.3d 1104, 1112 (11th Cir. 2012), “when a 

party agrees with a court’s proposed [jury] instructions, the doctrine . . . applies, meaning that review is waived,” United States v. 

Frank, 599 F.3d 1221, 1240 (11th Cir. 2010).

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 23 of 25
24 Opinion of the Court 20-13733

Here, Jensen did more than just fail to object to the jury instructions. He did not propose his own instructions, and when the 

district court asked his counsel whether he had looked at the government’s proposed instructions, his counsel replied that he had 

and that he had “[n]o objection” to them. Because Jensen invited 

the district court to use the jury instructions at issue, he cannot

challenge them now. See United States v. Feldman, 931 F.3d 1245, 

1260 (11th Cir. 2019) (“Under our precedent, ‘when a party agrees 

with a court’s proposed instructions, the doctrine of invited error 

applies, meaning that review is waived even if plain error would 

result.’” (citation omitted)); United States v. Silvestri, 409 F.3d 

1311, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005) (“When a party responds to a court’s 

proposed jury instructions with the words ‘the instruction is acceptable to us,’ such action constitutes invited error.” (citation 

omitted)); United States v. Fulford, 267 F.3d 1241, 1246–47 (11th 

Cir. 2001) (applying the invited error doctrine to a supplemental 

jury instruction where defense counselsaid that the instruction was 

acceptable).

Relying on our recent decision in United States v. Campbell,

26 F.4th 860 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc), Jensen maintains that the 

error wasn’t invited because his counsel’s “routine statement” was 

not “an intentional waiver of [Jensen’s] rights.” We disagree. We 

explained in Campbell that there is “a distinction between waived 

issues and forfeited issues.” Id. at 872. “[F]orfeiture is the failure 

to make the timely assertion of a right; waiver is the intentional 

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 24 of 25
20-13733 Opinion of the Court 25

relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” Id. (citation

omitted). 

Here, Jensen’s counsel did not just fail to make a timely objection to the jury instructions; he intentionally and affirmatively 

voiced his agreement with the instructions. This is a waiver on 

Jensen’s part, not a forfeiture, to any challenge to the jury instructions in this case. See id.; Feldman, 931 F.3d at 1260. Because Jensen invited any errors arising from the jury instructions, we are precluded from reviewing the issue. See Harris, 443 F.3d at 823–24.

CONCLUSION 

We conclude that any evidentiary error in the exclusion of 

the chats was harmless, the exclusion of the chats did not violate 

Jensen’s constitutional right to present a defense, and Jensen invited any errors in the jury instructions. Finding no reversible error, we affirm Jensen’s conviction.

 AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 20-13733 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 25 of 25