United States v. Cesiro, 23-6649

Thomas Cesiro was convicted after a jury trial in the Northern District of New York for attempted coercion and enticement of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b).
He was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment and a 10-year term of supervised release.
Cesiro engaged online with an undercover officer posing as a mother and her 12-year-old daughter, planning to meet them in New York for sexual acts.
The key evidence included explicit conversations and physical evidence found in his car, as well as his own admissions after arrest.
On appeal, Cesiro challenged the trial court’s refusal to sanction the government for lost online evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction.
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions on both issues.

Issue	Cesiro's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Spoliation Sanctions	Government should be sanctioned for failing to preserve profile data	Loss was due to third-party action, not government fault	Denied; loss not chargeable to State
Exculpatory Value of Evidence	Lost data could have verified detective's testimony	Speculation insufficient; no concrete exculpatory value shown	Denied; exculpatory value speculative
Government Bad Faith	No explanation for failure to preserve profile	No involvement in account’s termination, efforts were made to recover	Denied; no bad faith shown
Sufficiency of Evidence	Did not believe persona was a minor; did not commit offense in NY	Evidence showed belief minor was under 18 and substantial steps taken	Affirmed conviction; evidence sufficient

West v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 167 F.3d 776 (2d Cir. 1999) (abuse of discretion standard for spoliation sanctions)
United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999) (spoliation requires loss chargeable to government)
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) (requirements for sanction based on destroyed exculpatory evidence)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
Illinois v. Fisher, 540 U.S. 544 (2004) (bad faith required for failure to preserve “potentially useful” evidence)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (bad faith standard for destruction of potentially useful evidence)
United States v. Tran, 519 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2008) (heavy burden on sufficiency of evidence challenge)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
United States v. Brand, 467 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2006) (elements of enticement under § 2422(b))
United States v. Douglas, 626 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2010) (intent to entice sufficient for conviction under attempt statutes)
United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003) (substantial step requirement for attempt liability)
United States v. Manley, 632 F.2d 978 (2d Cir. 1980) (definition of substantial step in attempt cases)