Opinion ID: 812885
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Jury Instructions on Count One

Text: Robinson challenges the jury instructions on Count One, which charged him with sex trafficking of a minor, in violation of the amended version of § 1591. Robinson’s argument focuses on the statute’s mens rea requirement with regard to his awareness that Jane Doe was a minor. The District Court charged the jury, in relevant part, that “[t]o prove Count One, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt . . . that [the defendant] knew that Jane Doe had not attained the age of 8 eighteen years, or he recklessly disregarded that fact, or he had a reasonable opportunity to observe Jane Doe.” Joint App’x 215. In other words, the District Court identified three independent ways of proving criminal liability with respect to Robinson’s awareness of Jane Doe’s status as a minor: (1) he knew that she was under eighteen, (2) he recklessly disregarded the fact that she was under eighteen, or (3) he had a reasonable opportunity to observe her. On appeal, where our review of jury instructions for legal error is de novo, United States v. Kozeny, 667 F.3d 122, 130 (2d Cir. 2011), the parties present two widely divergent interpretations of the statute. Robinson argues that § 1591(c) is a conjunctive requirement, meaning the government must prove both that he had a reasonable opportunity to observe Jane Doe and that he recklessly disregarded her age. In support of this view, he cites the only federal decision addressing this question. See United States v. Wilson, No. 10-60102-CR, 2010 WL 2991561 (S.D. Fla. July 27, 2010), report and recommendation adopted by 2010 WL 3239211 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2010). In Wilson, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, which stated that “where the Government elects to proceed under the reckless disregard level of mens rea, Section 1591(c) requires the Government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt not only that the defendant acted in reckless disregard [of the victim’s status as a minor], but also that the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the person recruited.” Id. at . By contrast, the government defends the District Court’s instructions, arguing that the word “knew” in § 1591(c) refers to knowledge and reckless disregard, thus creating a freestanding alternative to proving either of the mens rea alternatives in § 1591(a). See Gov’t Br. 43 (“The district court correctly read § 1591(c) to mean that the government need not prove the knowledge element—whether under a knowing or reckless disregard standard—in cases where the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the victim.” (emphasis in original)). 9 Robinson responds to the government’s interpretation by pointing out that the amended version of § 1591(a) requires the government to prove “know[ledge]” or “reckless disregard,” whereas § 1591(c) mentions only that in certain circumstances the government need not prove that the defendant “knew” that the victim was a minor. Compare 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) (Supp. II 2008) (defendant must have acted “knowing, or in reckless disregard of the fact, that . . . the person has not attained the age of 18 years”), with id. § 1591(c) (Supp. II 2008) (in certain circumstances, “the Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the person had not attained the age of 18 years”). Based on this discrepancy, Robinson frames the government’s argument as an unwarranted effort “to insert language into a statute in the interest of achieving symmetry.” Appellant’s Br. 43; see also Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 173 (2001) (“[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.” (quotation marks omitted)). We must begin, of course, with the plain language of the statute, and “our inquiry must cease if the statutory language is unambiguous . . . and the statutory scheme is coherent and consistent.” Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk, 131 S. Ct. 1885, 1893 (2011) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). “The plainness or ambiguity of statutory language is determined by reference to the language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole.” Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341 (1997). “In interpreting the statute at issue, we consider not only the bare meaning of the critical word or phrase but also its placement and purpose in the statutory scheme.” Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1, 6 (1999) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Or, as Justice Scalia observed in another context, “the words of a statute are not to be read in isolation; statutory interpretation is a ‘holistic endeavor.’” 10 Regions Hosp. v. Shalala, 522 U.S. 448, 466 (1998) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (quoting United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., Ltd., 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988)). Robinson’s interpretation is mistaken. The text and structure of the statute do not indicate that § 1591(c) imposes an additional element on top of the mens rea requirement in § 1591(a). Quite to the contrary, § 1591(c) states what the government “need not prove.” 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c) (Supp. II 2008) (emphasis supplied). The better reading of § 1591(c) is that the government may prove that the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to view the victim in lieu of proving knowledge. In relevant part, § 1591(c) reads: where “the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the [victim], the Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the person had not attained the age of 18 years.” Id. Viewed in context, the most natural reading of this provision is that proof that the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the victim may substitute for proof that the defendant knew the victim’s underage status. Because § 1591(a) requires proof of knowledge or reckless disregard—not both—the government may satisfy its burden by proving knowledge or the substitute for knowledge under § 1591(c). Accordingly, § 1591(c) supplies an alternative to proving any mens rea with regard to the defendant’s awareness of the victim’s age. This reading gives force to the provision’s obvious goal—to reduce the government’s burden where the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the victim. This commonsensical understanding of § 1591(c) also vindicates “the cardinal rule that, if possible, effect shall be given to every clause and part of a statute.” RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 132 S. Ct. 2065, 2071 (2012) (quotation marks omitted); see also Duncan, 533 U.S. at 174 (“It is our duty to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute.” (quotation marks omitted)). If Robinson were correct that § 1591(c)’s use of the word “knew” did not remove the usual 11 mens rea requirement, then § 1591(c) would add nothing to the statute. That is because by including reckless disregard as one of the mens rea options, § 1591(a) already provides that a defendant may be proved guilty without having known that the victim was a minor. In sum, the plain reading of § 1591(c), and the only interpretation that preserves any meaning, is that the provision creates strict liability where the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the victim. Accordingly, just as the District Court instructed, § 1591(a) and § 1591(c) provide the government with three distinct options―prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the defendant had knowledge of the victim’s underage status; (2) that the defendant recklessly disregarded that fact; or (3) that the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the victim. We are mindful that criminal statutes are generally construed to include mens rea requirements. See Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 605–06 (1994); United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 437–38 (1978). But that presumption does not apply to sex crimes against minors, see Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 251 n.8 (1952), at least when “the perpetrator confronts the underage victim personally,” United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 72 n.2 (1994).9 Moreover, the presumption applies when someone engages in “otherwise innocent conduct,” including constitutionally protected conduct, id. at 72, and thus has little purchase for Robinson, who was engaged in sex trafficking. See United States v. Griffith, 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002) (“[A] defendant is already on notice that he is committing a crime when he transports an individual of any age in interstate commerce for the purpose of prostitution.”); see also X-Citement Video, 513 U.S. at 73 n.3 (“Criminal intent serves to separate those who understand the wrongful nature of their act from those 9 Indeed, personally confronting an underage victim may suffice to show reckless disregard of the victim’s age. See Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 68 & n.18 (2007) (criminal reckless disregard of a fact means awareness of “‘an unjustifiably high risk’” of that fact (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 836 (1994))); cf. X-Citement Video, 513 U.S. at 76 n.5 (“[T]he reality [is] that producers [of child pornography] are more conveniently able to ascertain the age of performers. It thus makes sense to impose the risk of error on producers.”); United States v. Brooks, 610 F.3d 1186, 1197 (9th Cir. 2010) (jury’s “opportunity to consider [the victim’s] appearance during her testimony, at which time she was eighteen,” was among the evidence sufficient to show defendant’s knowledge that the victim was a minor). 12 who do not, but does not require knowledge of the precise consequences that may flow from that act once aware that the act is wrongful.”); cf., e.g., United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 684 (1975) (holding that “to effectuate the congressional purpose of according maximum protection to federal officers,” a federal criminal statute punishing assaults against federal officers “cannot be construed as embodying an unexpressed requirement that an assailant be aware that his victim is a federal officer”). Our interpretation of § 1591(c) also maintains uniformity with the other federal child-protective statutes that use nearly identical language and that have been interpreted to “lack [ ] mens rea requirements with respect to [the victim’s] age.” United States v. Jennings, 496 F.3d 344, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). For example, in 18 U.S.C. § 2241 and § 2243—two provisions that punish sexual abuse of children—Congress drafted subsections labeled “[s]tate of mind proof requirement,” which explain that “the Government need not prove that the defendant knew” the victim was a minor. 18 U.S.C. § 2241(d), § 2243(d).10 Courts have uniformly interpreted these provisions as disclaiming mens rea requirements with respect to the victim’s age. See, e.g., United States v. White Calf, 634 F.3d 453, 457 (8th Cir. 2011) (addressing § 2243(d)); United States v. Ransom, 942 F.2d 775, 776 n.1 (10th Cir. 1991) (addressing § 2241(d)); see also Jennings, 496 F.3d at 352–53 (addressing both sections and applying the same principle to § 2244); United States v. Juvenile Male, 211 F.3d 1169, 1171 (9th Cir. 2000) (addressing 10Section 2241(d) provides: “State of mind proof requirement—In a prosecution under subsection (c) of this section, the Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the other person engaging in the sexual act had not attained the age of 12 years.” Section 2243(d) provides: “State of mind proof requirement.—In a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section, the Government need not prove that the defendant knew—(1) the age of the other person engaging in the sexual act; or (2) that the requisite age difference existed between the persons so engaging.” This statute also 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). 13 § 2241(c)). Moreover, one of these provisions—§ 2241(d)—evidently was the template for § 1591(c).11 Having used identical language, Congress obviously intended the same principle to apply with respect to § 1591(c), thus making the defendant’s awareness of the victim’s age irrelevant when the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the victim. Finally, we note that § 1591(c)’s drafting history further supports our textual analysis. The legislative reform that culminated in the adoption of § 1591(c) in the 2008 amendments began in the House of Representatives with a bill that would have left knowledge as the only mental state referenced in § 1591(a) but would have added the following provision: “In a prosecution under this subsection, the Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the person had not attained the age of 18 years.” H.R. 3887, 110th Cong. § 221 (as passed by H.R., Dec. 4, 2007). The House bill thus proposed made the trafficking of minors into a strict-liability crime with respect to a defendant’s awareness of the victim’s age, even if the defendant never observed the victim. The members of the Senate Judiciary Committee apparently disfavored this strict-liability option and instead reported a bill adding “or in reckless disregard” to the mens rea requirement in § 1591(a). S. 3061, 110th Cong. § 222 (as reported by S. Comm. on the Judiciary, Sept. 8, 2008). The House then responded by passing another bill, this time keeping the proposed mens rea language from the reported Senate bill but adding the provision that now appears in § 1591(c)—providing that when “the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe” the victim, “the Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the person had not attained the age of 18 years.” H.R. 7311, 110th Cong. § 222 (as passed by H.R. Dec. 10, 2008). This drafting history helps clarify what is already apparent when reading § 1591 in its entirety: The government need 11Two cosponsors of the House version of the TVPRA, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and Representative Howard Berman, also explained that § 1591(c) “reflects a similar provision in the aggravated sexual abuse offense, [18 U.S.C. §] 2241(d), and is crafted in light of United States v. X-Citement Video, 513 U.S. 64, 70, n.2 (1994) (exception from presumption of mens rea more appropriate in statutes in which perpetrator necessarily ‘confronts the underage victim personally and may reasonably be required to ascertain that victim’s age’).” 154 Cong. Rec. H24602 (daily ed. Dec. 10, 2008). 14 not prove any mens rea with regard to the defendant’s awareness of the victim’s age if the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the victim. Given this holding, we conclude that the District Court did not err in giving the three-part jury instruction. In a prosecution under § 1591, the government may satisfy its burden of proof with respect to the defendant’s awareness of the victim’s age by proving any of the following beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the defendant knew that the victim was under eighteen, (2) the defendant recklessly disregarded the fact that the victim was under eighteen, or (3) the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the victim.12