United States v. Louis Ruggiero
791 F.3d 1281
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Ruggiero pleaded guilty to producing child porn under §2251(a) with a right to appeal the district court’s denial of dismissal.
- Indictment charged three counts of enticing a minor for porn, one count of attempting to entice, and one count of possessing child porn.
- §2251(a) does not require knowledge of the victim’s age; knowledge is not an element or defense.
- District court upheld constitutionality; Ruggiero challenged on Fifth and Sixth Amendment grounds.
- Court addresses facial and as-applied challenges, plus a vagueness contention, concluding §2251(a) is constitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is §2251(a) facially unconstitutional? | Ruggiero argues no set of circumstances where law would be valid. | Ruggiero contends the lack of knowledge-of-age defeats due-process/ jury rights. | Facial challenge fails; statute valid under applicable standards. |
| Is §2251(a) unconstitutional as applied to Ruggiero? | Argues due process requires knowledge; X-Citement dicta support defense. | Age knowledge not element; production harms justify regulation. | As applied challenge fails; no requirement to prove victim’s age. |
| Is §2251(a) void for vagueness? | Argues lack of notice to defendants. | statute is clear enough for ordinary intelligence. | Vagueness challenge rejected; statute sufficiently clear. |
Key Cases Cited
- Deverso, 518 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2008) (knowledge not element for §2251(a))
- X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1994) (distributor knowledge required for §2252; production treated differently)
- Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (U.S. 1957) (due process for ignorance of the law distinctions)
- Gilmour v. Rogerson, 117 F.3d 368 (8th Cir. 1997) (common-law background on sex offenses and age)
- Malloy, 568 F.3d 166 (4th Cir. 2009) (rejection of importation of knowledge defense for §2251(a))