United States v. Jay Thompson, 11 F.4th 925

Background

Undercover Detective Alison Nguyen posed online as "Skye," a 13‑year‑old on Craigslist as part of an Internet Crimes Against Children sting; she exchanged emails and texts with Jay Thompson in Sept. 2019.
Nguyen (posing as Skye) sent filtered/childlike photos, stated her age in the initial exchange, and repeatedly expressed sexual willingness; Thompson reciprocated with explicit sexual propositions and agreed to meet at Skye’s RV.
Thompson was arrested at the RV, read Miranda rights, and interviewed by task‑force officers; the interview was not recorded because the device battery had failed.
Special Agent Faulkner testified at trial (rebuttal) that Thompson said he believed the person he was meeting was under 16; Thompson testified he thought Skye was an adult (e.g., a prostitute or undercover officer).
Thompson was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) for attempting to entice a minor and sentenced to the 120‑month mandatory minimum; on appeal he challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence (belief element), (2) prosecutorial misconduct during cross‑examination and rebuttal, and (3) denial of a motion to compel a document about Officer Sears’s removal from the task force.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Thompson)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Sufficiency: Did evidence prove Thompson believed the target was a minor?	Evidence insufficient; Thompson reasonably believed Skye was an adult (photos, slang, experience with Craigslist); any admission was unreliable.	Email/text content and Nguyen’s testimony (plus Faulkner’s account) permitted a reasonable jury to find belief that Skye was a minor.	Affirmed — viewed in light most favorable to verdict, a reasonable jury could find Thompson believed Skye was a minor.
Admissibility/weight of Faulkner’s testimony (post‑arrest statement)	Faulkner’s account conflicted with Thompson; Sears (the interviewer) was not called; interview not recorded — undermines reliability.	Credibility and weight are for the jury; Faulkner’s testimony was admissible and not outcome‑determinative.	Affirmed — credibility resolved by jury; evidence independent of Faulkner supported conviction.
Prosecutorial misconduct (cross & rebuttal: implying witness would lose career or be prosecuted if lying)	Prosecutor improperly vouched and attacked defense, requiring reversal.	No objection at trial; comments did not produce plain‑error reversal because other evidence supported verdict and jury instructions cured harm.	Affirmed — plain‑error standard not met; remarks not so prejudicial as to require reversal.
Motion to compel (document about Sears’s removal) — Brady/ impeachment material?	Document might impeach government witnesses and was material to guilt or punishment; district court abused discretion by sealing/denying.	Document did not contain evidence material to guilt/punishment and Sears was not called, so it was not Brady/Rule 16 material.	Affirmed — review of sealed document showed no material impeachment evidence; denial was not an abuse of discretion.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Free, 976 F.3d 810 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
United States v. Fool Bear, 903 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2018) (sufficiency review framework)
United States v. Hensley, 982 F.3d 1147 (8th Cir. 2020) (government must prove defendant believed target was a minor)
United States v. Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2006) (actual minor not required for attempt under § 2422(b))
United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (1980) (jury is the sole judge of witness credibility)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutorial suppression of material favorable evidence violates due process)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (Brady disclosure obligation includes impeachment evidence)
United States v. White Horse, 316 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 2003) (review of pretrial production rulings: abuse of discretion standard)
United States v. Eagle, 515 F.3d 794 (8th Cir. 2008) (jury instructions can cure potential prejudice)