United States v. Daniels
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13773
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Daniels ran a Detroit prostitution business with mostly adult prostitutes and several underage victims; Head testified as his lead prostitute and agreed to testify; the indictment charged eight counts, with Counts I–V at issue, including a new CEE offense in §2252A(g); computer- and Craigslist-based ads were used to solicit clients and advertise services; multiple witnesses described underage victims and Daniels's involvement in organizing, photographing, and transporting minors; the district court gave jury instructions linking Counts II–V as predicate offenses for Count I; Daniels challenged Counts I, II, III, and V on sufficiency, Count IV on jury instructions, and sought retrial due to alleged spillover evidence from Count I.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for manufacturing child pornography (Count II) | Daniels argues insufficient proof. | Daniels contends the photo was not pornographic and Head took it. | Count II affirmed; sufficient evidence shows pornographic depiction. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for distributing child pornography (Count III) | Daniels argues inadequate proof of distribution and involvement. | Head uploaded ads; Daniels directed ads and distribution. | Count III affirmed; evidence supports distribution and Daniels's responsibility. |
| Whether knowledge of the minor's age is required for transporting a minor (Count IV) | Flores-Figueroa requires knowledge of all elements. | Context allows omitting knowledge of minor's age under §2423(a). | Count IV affirmed; Flores-Figueroa does not compel a knowledge-of-age element in §2423(a). |
| Whether Daniels could be convicted under Count I (CEE) given 'in concert' requirement | Evidence shows multiple counts and possible conspiratorial conduct. | Insufficient evidence that three or more other persons acted in concert with Daniels. | Count I reversed; government failed to prove three or more others acted in concert. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (U.S. 1999) (jury must agree on which predicate offenses form the series)
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1886 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (context may limit application of 'knowingly' to all elements)
- United States v. Cox, 577 F.3d 833 (7th Cir. 2009) (context supports not requiring knowledge of minor's age)
- United States v. Jones, 471 F.3d 535 (4th Cir. 2006) (age element not required under Mann Act contexts)
- United States v. Taylor, 239 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2001) (age element considerations in trafficking statutes)
- United States v. Wayerski, 624 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2010) (conspiracy-like 'in concert' analysis for CCE-like statute)