United States v. Daron Lee Jungers
702 F.3d 1066
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Undercover officers posted ads seeking adults offering underage girls for sex; Jungers and Bonestroo responded.
- Jungers sought an 11-year-old girl for an hour; traveled to the undercover house and was prepared to pay for sex.
- Bonestroo agreed to pay $200 for sex with what he believed were 14-year-old twins; arrested when he arrived.
- Both defendants were charged with attempted commercial sex trafficking under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1594(a) and moved for acquittal; juries convicted.
- District courts later acquitted each defendant for insufficiency of evidence, prompting government appeals.
- The court reverses, reinstating the juries’ verdicts and sending cases for sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1591 applies to purchasers as well as suppliers | Government argues plain text criminalizes both buyers and sellers | Bonestroo/Jungers contend §1591 targets only suppliers | §1591 applies to purchasers under its plain language |
| Whether a purchaser can be convicted under §1591 without the minor ever engaging in a sex act | Purchasers can be convicted for prohibited predicate acts | Purchasers cannot be guilty unless they commit or cause a sex act | Purchaser can be convicted for prohibited acts under §1591 even if the minor does not engage in a sex act |
| What is the proper standard of review for sufficiency of evidence on a Rule 29(a) challenge | De novo review in government’s favor | Strict scrutiny of district court’s reasoning | Sufficiency reviewed de novo for rational jury verdicts |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ward, 686 F.3d 879 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for sufficiency; de novo in statutorily interpreted contexts)
- United States v. Reed, 668 F.3d 978 (8th Cir. 2012) (statutory interpretation for ambiguous language)
- Lamie v. U.S. Tr., 540 U.S. 526 (U.S. 2004) (textual interpretation; no implied exceptions)
- United States v. Culbert, 435 U.S. 371 (U.S. 1978) (broad interpretation of broad statutory terms)
- Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (U.S. 1993) (ordinary meaning of undefined terms; deference to statutory text)
- Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (contextual reading of statute within scheme)