Opinion ID: 602140
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 4 Gerisch was convicted of sexual contact with a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(3). On an airplane trip, he sat next to a girl who was thirteen, but told him she was sixteen. The statute provides for an affirmative defense, if the defendant reasonably believed that the other person had attained the age of 16 years. 18 U.S.C. § 2243(c)(1). He gave her vodka from some of the drinks served to him. According to one of the flight attendants, Gerisch embraced and kissed the girl with a hand on her breast in the dimly lit area behind the movie screen, and then was in the bathroom with her, with a hand up near her chest area, and his other hand [d]own by his waist level by his shorts. The other flight attendant said they were in an embrace in the bathroom, and Gerisch's hands were on her breast area. They moved down to his pants where I don't know buttoned or zipped or I don't know. 5 The girl testified that she had told Gerisch she was sixteen. At some point she kissed him, but she was drunk and did not recall any of the flight after that until they landed. The girl also testified that the prosecutor had told her, when he interviewed her, that Gerisch had his pants down while they were in the bathroom. She did not recall the incident at all, and the FBI had not told her Gerisch had his pants down. 6 Gerisch, a California peace officer, took the stand. The reference to Gerisch's shorts evidently was to short trousers, not undershorts--he testified that he was wearing white jean cutoffs with button fly, five buttons up the front. Gerisch testified that the girl told him she was sixteen and he believed her, he had a number of drinks, he kissed the girl but did not fondle her. Gerisch testified that he helped the girl to the bathroom when she got sick, because she was too drunk to walk, and too drunk to stand up while waiting for the bathroom to be unoccupied. He testified that while she was in the bathroom, she was throwing up, rather than engaging in a mutual embrace with him. 7 Two factual questions were central to the outcome, and to the mistrial. One was whether Gerisch intended to obtain sexual gratification from the girl in the bathroom, or only intended to help her get to it so that she could vomit there. The other was whether he reasonably believed that she was sixteen. The trial judge, who unlike us observed and heard all the witnesses, characterized the case as very close. 8 The prosecutor began his cross-examination of Gerisch by establishing that he knowingly violated California law by giving alcohol to the girl. This stimulated a relevancy objection because they were not in California, and Gerisch was not charged with furnishing liquor to a minor. They were on a charter flight over the Pacific Ocean, between San Francisco and Honolulu. Gerisch was charged under federal law, not California law. The judge sustained the objection, but the prosecutor then asked Gerisch whether he knew of anyplace in the United States where it was legal. The judge told him to stop all that, and himself phrased the question as whether Gerisch had an opinion on whether it was lawful to provide alcohol to a sixteen year old on the aircraft. The defense attorney objected, because Gerisch was not charged with that crime, but the judge concluded that the defense had opened the door by asking Gerisch on direct whether he would have done anything to jeopardize his law enforcement career. Gerisch answered that he thought it was illegal and poor judgment but not something over which he would lose his job. 9 A few minutes into the cross, the prosecutor returned to California law, letting the jury know that sexual molestation of a person under 18 would violate California law. 10 Q: And you are a sworn California peace officer, right? 11 A: Yes, I am. 12 Q: All right. Are you also familiar with the section of the California Penal Code 647.6 which makes it an offense to molest a child under 18-- 13 Gerisch objected, the objection was sustained, and the judge told the prosecutor he was skating on the edge. The defendant moved for a mistrial. At sidebar, the prosecutor argued relevance on the basis that Gerisch had said he would not do anything to jeopardize his career, and he was presumably familiar with California law as a peace officer. The judge saw no merit to this argument, took the motion for mistrial under submission and noted his view that an acquittal was likely. The judge told the prosecutor that his question was way out of line and you know it. The judge admonished the jury to disregard the question, and that the question is intended to prejudice you. 14 During closing argument, Gerisch's attorney reminded the jury that the girl had testified that the prosecutor told her Gerisch's pants were down, but the eyewitnesses had referred only to Gerisch's hand being on his shorts. There was no evidence that Gerisch's pants were down. The flight attendants' testimony was not clear, but seemed to mean that Gerisch's pants were up, but he had a hand near or on them. Gerisch's attorney countered the vague innuendo that something more was going to go on by suggesting the impossibility of pulling up jean cutoffs and buttoning a fly with one hand. In rebuttal, the prosecutor argued that the jury could infer using your common sense what was going to happen next. The defense again moved for a mistrial. The judge took the motion under submission, and admonished the jury that the only charge before them was the one in the indictment, and the suggestion of the possibility of other conduct was irrelevant. 15 The judge granted Gerisch's motion for a new trial, based on two instances of prosecutorial misconduct. They were the question stating California law on sexual contact with persons under 18, and the closing argument suggestion that the jury use its common sense to infer what was going to happen next. 16