United States v. Matthew Andrew Carter
776 F.3d 1309
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Six-count indictment charged Counts 1–5 under §2423(b) (one count for 2001 Haiti travel with intent to engage in sexual act; four counts for travel to Haiti for illicit sexual conduct with a minor) and Count 6 for attempted travel under §2423(e).
- Counts 2–5 allege travel to Haiti for illicit sexual conduct as defined by §2423(f); the 2000 version defined illicit conduct and acts, with the definition including sexual acts with minors.
- Evidence at trial showed Carter ran the Morning Star Center in Haiti, gathering funds in the U.S. and fostering a center that allegedly hosted abuses of male minors; sixteen victims testified of abuse.
- G.S. testified that Carter forced him to masturbate and engaged in other sexual acts; defense cross-examination involved admissibility and forms of hearsay, with the court limiting questions.
- Carter moved to depose five foreign witnesses (neighbors, a Danish investigator) under Rule 15; the district court denied, finding the testimony cumulative or immaterial, and the denial was challenged on appeal.
- Exhibit 105, a State Department cable memorializing a 1990 Egypt arrest, was admitted partially; the court ruled the comments portion was inadmissible but the basic arrest data could be admitted; Carter challenged Confrontation and hearsay implications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count One requires proof the sexual act occurred in the special maritime jurisdiction | Carter argues act must occur in SMJ | Carter asserts location element is necessary | No; location not an element for Count One |
| Whether the district court erred by omitting a ‘knowing’ travel element for Counts 1–5 | Carter claims ‘knowing travel’ required | No ‘knowing’ requirement in §2423(b) | No; no knowing-travel element in §2423(b); instructions were correct |
| Whether the district court abused by denying Rule 15 foreign witness depositions | Depositions material to defense; exceptional circumstances | Witnesses cumulative or not material | No abuse; denial within district court’s discretion |
| Whether Exhibit 105 was improperly admitted (hearsay/Confrontation Clause) | Cable contains statements of Carter; hearsay and confrontation concerns | Cable primarily used as impeachment; not testimonial | Harmless error; evidence was collateral and guilt was overwhelming |
| Whether cross-examination limitations on G.S. violated the Confrontation Clause | Limitations impaired credibility attack | Impeachment available through other avenues; no violation | No reversible error; cross-examination allowed to show credibility weaknesses |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bredimus, 352 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 2003) (elements of §2423(b) travel with intent; offense complete upon travel)
- United States v. Vang, 128 F.3d 1065 (7th Cir. 1997) (illicit sexual conduct definition; framing of §2423(b) travel element)
- United States v. Tykarsky, 446 F.3d 458 (3d Cir. 2006) (interpreting mens rea for §2423(b))
- United States v. Drogoul, 1 F.3d 1546 (11th Cir. 1993) (Rule 15 exceptional-circumstances factors for foreign depositions)
- United States v. Ramos, 45 F.3d 1519 (11th Cir. 1995) (three-factor test for Rule 15 depositions; materiality)
- United States v. Magluta, 418 F.3d 1166 (11th Cir. 2005) (harmless-error standard for evidentiary issues)
- United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (Confrontation and cross-examination considerations)