933 F.3d 11
1st Cir.2019Background
- William Gaudet was indicted on 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) and (b) for transporting/traveling with a minor (his daughter T.G.) with intent to engage in sexual activity; trial in Nov. 2017 resulted in convictions on both counts.
- Prosecution relied on T.G.'s testimony that Gaudet abused her at home and during 2010 trips to Maine and the Great Wolf Lodge; T.G. had delayed disclosure and some variations in earlier interviews.
- The government introduced recorded testimony from Gaudet's other daughter, Jenny (from a prior trial; Jenny had since died), and evidence of Gaudet’s conviction for abusing Jenny.
- The district court denied Gaudet’s Rule 29 motions and the jury convicted; the court sentenced Gaudet to life on Count One and 360 months on Count Two.
- At sentencing the court applied a two‑level U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 obstruction/perjury enhancement based on its finding that Gaudet willfully gave false testimony denying the abuse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Gaudet) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict on §2423(a) & (b) | T.G.’s testimony, corroborated by expert testimony on delayed disclosure and Jenny’s similar allegations, sufficed for a reasonable juror. | T.G.’s delayed and inconsistent statements and other witnesses (e.g., brother as a heavy sleeper) undermine credibility such that no reasonable juror could convict. | Affirmed: viewing evidence in government’s favor, a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Admission of Jenny’s recorded testimony and prior conviction (Rules 413/414 and 403) | Testimony and conviction were highly probative of intent and credibility; probative value outweighed prejudice. | Admission was unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 and should have been excluded. | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; evidence was probative of intent and corroborated T.G.; prejudice was not unfairly outweighed. |
| Proof of "intent to engage in" sexual conduct for interstate travel element | Evidence of prior abuse at home, abuse occurring on the interstate trips, and Jenny’s similar accusations support that sexual purpose was a motivating purpose of travel. | Gaudet’s testimony that travel purpose was innocent (whale watching, family trip) negates intent. | Affirmed: intent may be one of several motives; jury reasonably found sexual purpose was a motivating purpose of the trips. |
| Sentencing: obstruction/perjury enhancement & reasonableness under §3553(a) | Sentencing court (who presided at trial) properly found willful false testimony and applied §3C1.1; court considered §3553(a) factors including age and state sentence. | Enhancement improper because no showing of willful perjury; sentence greater than necessary and court failed to consider certain mitigating life circumstances. | Affirmed: district court made independent credibility findings supporting perjury enhancement and did not abuse discretion in fashioning a reasonable sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gómez-Encarnación, 885 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2018) (standard for reviewing Rule 29 sufficiency challenges)
- United States v. Acevedo, 882 F.3d 251 (1st Cir. 2018) (evidence viewed in government’s favor on sufficiency review)
- United States v. Hernandez, 218 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2000) (deference to jury on witness credibility)
- United States v. Tavares, 705 F.3d 4 (1st Cir. 2013) (intent for §2423 requires sexual purpose to be one motivating purpose)
- United States v. Ellis, 935 F.2d 385 (1st Cir. 1991) (prior abuse relevant to intent for transportation offense)
- United States v. Raymond, 697 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2012) (evidence of similar prior conduct probative of intent and modus operandi)
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (sentencing court must make independent findings to apply perjury enhancement)
- United States v. Shinderman, 515 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2008) (deference to sentencing judge who presided at trial on credibility/perjury findings)
- United States v. Sweeney, 887 F.3d 529 (1st Cir. 2018) (Rule 403 unfair prejudice balancing review)
- United States v. Joubert, 778 F.3d 247 (1st Cir. 2015) (evidentiary discretion and probative value of similar acts)
- Freeman v. Package Mach. Co., 865 F.2d 1331 (1st Cir. 1988) (appellate deference to district court's evidentiary balancing)
- Martinez v. Cui, 608 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2010) (explaining limits on admitting evidence of past sexual abuse when dissimilar)
- United States v. Majeroni, 784 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2015) (admission of prior conviction probative in related sexual offenses)
- United States v. Velez-Soto, 804 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2015) (standard of review for sentencing)
- United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2011) (appellate court will not substitute its judgment for sentencing court’s weighing of §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Cortés-Medina, 819 F.3d 566 (1st Cir. 2016) (district court need not address every mitigating argument on the record)
- United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) (arguments not raised in briefing may be treated as waived)