United States v. Johnathon Caudill
709 F.3d 444
5th Cir.2013Background
- Caudill was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) for attempting to persuade, induce, or entice individuals Caudill believed to be minors to engage in illegal sexual activity.
- An undercover Fort Worth officer posted a Craigslist ad; Caudill responded with an email including a photo of himself and explicit content, seeking sexual acts with assumed minors.
- The officer provided images of two clothed minors and stated their ages as eleven and thirteen; Caudill discussed sexual acts and a condom, and offered to pay $100 for access to the girls.
- Caudill planned to meet at a hotel and proceeded toward the hotel; he left when the officer did not respond.
- Caudill admitted using the Internet and cell phone to contact the officer and stated intent to have sexual contact with minors; the Government does not dispute that Caudill thought he was communicating with an adult at the time.
- The district court denied Caudill’s motion to dismiss; Caudill pleaded guilty and reserved the right to appeal the denial; the district court sentenced him to 180 months; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2422(b) covers communications with an adult intermediary. | Caudill contends no direct contact with a minor occurred. | Caudill argues he did not intend to persuade a minor. | Yes; § 2422(b) applies to intermediary communications. |
| Whether Caudill’s conduct violated § 2422(b) where he believed the minor assent would come via an intermediary. | Caudill believed the intermediary would convey assent. | Caudill claims lack of direct contact negates liability. | Liability exists; intermediary-directed persuasion suffices. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004) (held intermediary persuasion can violate § 2422(b))
- United States v. Spurlock, 495 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2007) (conduct through an intermediary to persuade minors)
- United States v. Nestor, 574 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2009) (direct communication not required; intermediaries permitted)
- United States v. Douglas, 626 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2010) (intermediary-directed persuasion valid under § 2422(b))
- United States v. Berk, 652 F.3d 132 (1st Cir. 2011) (support for intermediary liability under § 2422(b))
- United States v. Olvera, 687 F.3d 645 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam; adopts intermediary theory in certain contexts)
- United States v. Barlow, 568 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2009) (discusses scope of § 2422(b))