696 F. App'x 696
6th Cir.2017Background
- Miller was convicted after a bench trial of multiple sex offenses and challenged the district court’s rulings on indictment dismissal, evidence sufficiency, and suppression of statements.
- Miller had a registration obligation as a sex offender and provided a shelter address on several registration dates, which investigators later learned he had left in 2013.
- Concurrently, Miller engaged in online communications with a person he believed to be a 14-year-old girl, who was actually undercover investigators.
- During the sting, Miller discussed explicit sexual activities, sought illicit images, and discussed visiting the purported minor in Colorado.
- Miller admitted he no longer resided at the registered address and was interviewed after receiving Miranda warnings; his post-invocation statements were at issue.
- Charges included (1) §2422(b) using interstate commerce to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity, (2) §2251(a)/(e) producing sexually explicit depictions, (3) §2250(a),(c) failing to register, and (4) §2260A a felony sex offense while registered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outrageous government conduct bars prosecution? | Miller argues government agents’ suicide-note tactic coerced him. | District court erred by not dismissing indictment. | Affirmed; outrageous conduct defense not recognized. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for §2422(b) | There was no viable attempt to persuade a minor under 18. | Evidence showed Miller attempted to induce sexual activity. | Sufficient evidence to sustain Count 1. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for §2251(a)/(e) | No substantial step toward creating a visual depiction. | Miller took substantial steps by coercive requests for images. | Sufficient evidence to sustain Count 2. |
| Suppression of statements | The 9:52 a.m. invocation terminated interrogation. | Interrogation continued with ambiguous invocation; later statements suppressed. | Statements suppressed after 10:04 a.m.; 9:52 invocation not unequivocal. |
| General admissibility/other evidentiary issues | Hearsay concerns regarding recordings. | Recordings properly admitted; alternative evidentiary issues do not undermine convictions. | Convictions supported despite evidentiary challenges. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Amawi, 695 F.3d 457 (6th Cir. 2012) (outrageous-government-conduct defense not adopted in Sixth Circuit)
- United States v. Tucker, 28 F.3d 1420 (6th Cir. 1994) (government’s conduct cannot bar prosecution under Due Process)
- United States v. Warwick, 167 F.3d 965 (6th Cir. 1999) (rejection of outrageous conduct defense)
- United States v. Sims, 708 F.3d 832 (6th Cir. 2013) (substantial-step standard for §2251(a))
- Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91 (1984) (clarity of invocation of right to counsel)