Opinion ID: 2507
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Redacted Statement

Text: Before trial, Jass moved for a severance, arguing that the admission of Leight's post-arrest confession at a joint trial would violate her Confrontation Clause rights as recognized in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476. Opposing severance, the government proposed to redact Leight's statement, substituting neutral pronouns or the phrase another person for any references to Jass. The district court found that such redaction and substitution would adequately avoid Bruton error, and it denied severance. Thus, at trial, an FBI agent testified to the following redacted account of Leight's post-arrest admissions:  Mr. Leight told me that he and another person had taken [Victim 2] [3] to the Rockaway Mall in New Jersey. Trial Tr. at 223.  Mr. Leight told me that they went, after shopping at the mall, he and the other person and [Victim 2] returned back to the hotel. Id.  Mr. Leight stated to me that [Victim 2] kissed him and the other person. Id.  Mr. Leight told me that the three of them were nude. Mr. Leight also told me that he and the other person attempted to have sexual intercourse while [Victim 2] was watching and again they were nude at the time. However, they were unable to have sexual intercourse because he did not maintain an erection. Id. at 224.  Mr. Leight told me that he took pictures of [Victim 2] and the other person in various sexual poses with the digital camera. Mr. Leight also told me that the other person took pictures of he and [Victim 2] in various sexual poses with the digital camera. Id. at 225.  Mr. Leight told me that he and the other person and [Victim 2] were able to view the photographs on the digital camera. Id. In the course of this testimony, the district court gave the jury the following limiting instruction: Ladies and gentlemen, let me just interrupt... to tell you about this testimony you've just heard. This testimony is to be received by you only against Mr. Leight. To the extent that you find the testimony credible and worthy of your weight, it can only be used in your determination of whether or not Mr. Leight is guilty of any of the crimes charged and cannot in any way be used by you in your consideration of the charges against Ms[.] Jass. Id. at 224. In its final charge to the jury, the district court reiterated this instruction as follows: There has been evidence that each of the defendants made certain statements to law enforcement.... You are cautioned that the evidence of one defendant's statements to law enforcement authorities ... may not be considered or discussed by you in any way with respect to the other defendant on trial. Kenneth Leight's statements may only be considered by you with respect to Kenneth Leight's guilt or nonguilt. Id. at 775-76. The jury found both defendants guilty of all crimes charged.
In its Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) on Jass, the Probation Department recommended that a two-level enhancement be applied to the calculation of her offense level pursuant to § 2G2.1(b)(3)(B)(ii) because defendants had used a computer to solicit the victim to engage in sexual activity. PSR ¶ 56. Jass contested the applicability of this enhancement, arguing that the plain language of the guidelineuse of a computer... [to] solicit participation with a minor in sexually explicit conduct, U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(3)(B)(ii)did not encompass solicitation of a minor but, rather, was intended to apply to solicitation of a third party's participation in sexually explicit conduct with a minor. The district court identified the question of § 2G2.1(b)(3)(B)(ii)'s applicability as a difficult one, but applied the enhancement, explaining as follows: I think we're going to give the Second Circuit their chance to rule on this. I'm going to find that the section does apply, although as in many statutes it could have been more clearly written. But I read this, I read 2G2.1(b)(3)(B)(ii) to refer to a situation in which the computer is used in order to garner the participation of sexin sexually explicit conduct with a minor or others. I do think it is more broad, it tends to be more broad than section [2G2.1 (b)(3)(B)](i). They could have been more clear about exactly what they intended by either adding the words of a third party or they could have written the words by or with a minor so we would have known clearly what they intended. But I'm going to find that in looking at the section as a whole, it does make sense that what they were trying to do here was carve out something more broad than was carved out in [sub]section [(i)]. So they wrote it in this inelegant fashion. Sentencing Tr. at 44. With a total offense level of 44 and a Criminal History category of I, Jass's Guidelines range provided for life imprisonment. The statutory maximums for her crimes of conviction, running consecutively, provided for 95 years' incarceration. The court exercised its discretion to sentence Jass to a non-Guidelines sentence totaling 65 years' imprisonment. The district court explained that its decision was intended to reflect that Jass's role in the criminal scheme was less than that of Leight, the planner ... the ringmaster... [who] clearly directed the activity. Id. at 53. Nevertheless, the court concluded that a severe sentence was called for because Jass's participation in the charged crimes was willing and extensive: she participated in all ways imaginable, from engaging in sexual activity with these minor children, to grooming them, getting them to the event and worse. Id. The district court expressly stated that its decision to impose a 65-year term would be the same even if the § 2G2.1(b)(3)(B)(ii) enhancement were not applicable to the calculation of Jass's Guidelines range: I'll also just note for the record that the sentence that I have given would not have changed either in terms of the guideline recommended sentence or in terms of the actual sentence that I gave regardless of how the issue of the two-point enhancement under 2G2.1 ultimately works out.... [U]nder either a 44, 43[,] or 42 [base offense level], just so the record is clear, I would give the same sentence. Id. at 56-57.