United States v. Jeffrey P. Taylor
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1293
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Taylor engaged in online chats with an undercover officer portraying a 13-year-old; he masturbated on webcam for Ellie to view.
- The earlier §2422(b) conviction was reversed, and an acquittal was entered for lack of physical-contact sexual activity; he was reindicted on §1470 for transferring obscene material to a minor.
- Trial proceeded on two counts of §1470; jury convicted on both counts.
- Voir dire revealed jurors with personal trauma; Taylor struck two jurors for cause using peremptories, leaving another juror with potential impartiality concerns.
- Cross-examination of Special Agent Brown and Investigator Pruitt about general chat-room behavior was limited by the court; the core evidence focused on Taylor’s belief that Ellie was a minor.
- At sentencing, probation was imposed for three years with a SORNA-registration discussion; the district court ruled §1470 convictions trigger SORNA, but the judgment only required three years of probation registration and did not memorialize SORNA in the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy for §1470 after acquittal on §2422(b) | Taylor argues the second prosecution violates double jeopardy. | Taylor contends the offenses share elements due to same conduct. | Not the same offense; Blockburger analysis supports multiple offenses. |
| Jury-selection for-cause rulings and peremptory challenges | Taylor claims improper strike of jurors with abuse experiences affected impartiality. | Court properly allowed peremptories and followed up on R.W.'s impartiality. | No reversible error; no plain error in seating R.W.; discretion within bounds. |
| Limits on cross-examination of officers | Excluded questions would undermine government’s portrayal of Ellie’s age and reliability. | Limitations were within the court’s discretion given relevance and potential confusion. | No abuse of discretion; cross-examination on core facts preserved; peripheral questions excluded. |
| SORNA registration ruling reviewability | Judgment should reflect SORNA finding and longer registration period. | Judge’s oral SORNA ruling cannot be reviewed because judgment does not embody it; no cross-appeal. | Judgment silent on SORNA; cannot review district court’s SORNA ruling; three-year probation registration stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410 (1980) (double jeopardy Blockburger framework; different elements)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (elements test for successive offenses)
- Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 (1988) (peremptory challenges do not violate Sixth Amendment if impartial jury seated)
- Martinez-Salazar v.: United States, 528 U.S. 304 (2000) (peremptory challenges and impartiality doctrine)
- Allen v. United States, 605 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 2010) (impartiality requires unequivocal assurances; deference to trial judge)
- United States v. Dixon, 551 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 2008) (review of SORNA-related rulings; statutory interpretation)
- United States v. Hester, 589 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2009) (SORNA scope and registration duties)
- United States v. Brown, 586 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2009) (SORNA definition of sex offenses)
- United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2009) (SORNA registration framework)
- United States v. Loniello, 610 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. 2010) (Blockburger/dual elements analysis)