United States v. Juan Robles Zavala
681 F. App'x 448
6th Cir.2017Background
- Zavala, a subscriber to GetItOn.com, messaged a profile "KelliWilliams" that stated she sought someone to "train" her "little me," described as younger and curious.
- Kelli (an undercover officer) communicated that her daughter “Amy” was about 12; Zavala sent sexually explicit messages purportedly to Amy, discussed sexual plans, and arranged a hotel meeting.
- Unbeknownst to Zavala, the profile was run by law enforcement; Zavala was arrested at the hotel, waived Miranda, and admitted knowing sex with a child was wrong.
- At trial, undercover officers testified about other contacts with the KelliWilliams profile and investigative practices; defense objected to that testimony.
- Zavala testified he believed Amy was a real 12-year-old until late November and argued insufficiency of evidence, entrapment, erroneous jury instruction, and improper prior-investigation testimony on appeal.
- The jury convicted Zavala under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b); the Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence (120 months).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence under § 2422(b) | Gov: Communications with adult intermediary intended to induce a minor satisfy the statute | Zavala: No actual minor was involved, only adult role-players, so conviction lacks factual basis | Affirmed; intent to induce a minor via an intermediary and substantial step suffices (Roman) |
| Entrapment | Gov: No entrapment — Zavala was predisposed | Zavala: Government induced the offense via undercover profile | Affirmed; Zavala was predisposed (initiated contact, made age-tolerant comments, continued after photo) |
| Jury instruction on "believed" age | Gov: Focus is on defendant's subjective intent; instruction appropriate | Zavala: Instruction misstated statute by requiring only belief rather than that victim was under 18 | Affirmed; instruction proper because statute targets defendant's subjective intent (Roman) |
| Admission of testimony about other investigations | Gov: Testimony explained investigative practices and context | Zavala: Testimony was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial | Affirmed as harmless error (even if erroneous, Zavala's own admissions made any error non-prejudicial) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Roman, 795 F.3d 511 (6th Cir.) (statute targets defendant's intent; communications with adult intermediary can violate § 2422(b))
- United States v. Owens, 426 F.3d 800 (6th Cir.) (standard for sufficiency-review; view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- United States v. Poulsen, 655 F.3d 492 (6th Cir.) (elements of entrapment: government inducement and lack of predisposition)
- United States v. Al-Cholan, 610 F.3d 945 (6th Cir.) (predisposition defeats entrapment defense)
- United States v. Kuehne, 547 F.3d 667 (6th Cir.) (standard for reviewing jury instructions)
- United States v. Wagner, 382 F.3d 598 (6th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Marrero, 651 F.3d 453 (6th Cir.) (harmless-error standard for erroneous evidentiary rulings)