United States v. Anthony Fletcher, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2516

Fletcher was convicted by a jury of production of child pornography (Count I), attempted production (Count II), and possession (Count III).
The district court held that § 2251(a) does not require knowledge of the victims’ ages and instructed the jury accordingly.
Fletcher represented himself at trial and challenged the government’s handling of evidence and possible Petite policy violations.
The McLean County state convictions preceded the federal grand jury indictment by about two months and Fletcher argued a Petite policy violation barred federal prosecution.
The district court denied motions for acquittal on several grounds, including evidence handling, and the court seated an alternate juror with Fletcher’s objections.
The court ultimately affirmed Fletcher’s convictions on all counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 2251(a) require knowledge of the victim’s age?	Fletcher argues the statute contains a scienter element.	United States contends no knowledge of age is required.	No knowledge element required; statute valid without mistake-of-age defense.
Is § 2251(a) under-inclusive constitutionally without a mistake-of-age defense?	Fletcher asserts overbreadth unless a mistake defense is read in.	Government relies on Ferber-like restrictions and rational basis for strict liability.	Statute survives constitutional scrutiny without a mistake-of-age defense.
Did the Petite policy violation warrant dismissal or due process relief?	Petite violation occurred because of potential overlap with state prosecutions.	Petite policy is internal and not a right enforceable by defendant.	Policy violation does not require dismissal; no due process/ equal protection remedies shown.
Did the government’s handling of evidence and possible failure to preserve exculpatory trace evidence violate due process?	Failure to preserve trace evidence could exonerate Fletcher.	No bad faith shown; no prejudicial impact established.	No reversible error; Youngblood standard not met; no bad faith shown.
Was the alternate juror improperly seated for cause?	Alternate had connections to law enforcement and to a trial expert.	Court properly exercised discretion; connections were attenuated.	District court did not abuse discretion; no prejudice shown.

United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1994) (knowledge of victim's age not element of § 2251(a))
Ferber v. New York, 458 U.S. 747 (U.S. 1982) (state interest in preventing child exploitation; overbreadth narrowly construed)
United States v. Malloy, 568 F.3d 166 (4th Cir. 2009) (no knowledge of victim’s age element; strict liability upheld)
United States v. Pliego, 578 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2009) (rejects Ninth Circuit mistake-of-age defense rationale)