United States v. McGuire
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24579
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- McGuire, a Jesuit priest, led retreats worldwide and acted as Dominick's guardian beginning in 1997.
- From 1997 to 2001 McGuire engaged in frequent sexual activity with Dominick during trips, often on retreats.
- McGuire also molested four other boys, evidencing a broad pattern and modus operandi during travels.
- He used grooming tactics (sharing beds, massages, pornographic material, coercive confessions) to facilitate sexual abuse.
- The government charged McGuire under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) (travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct), not other sections premised on actual transportation of a minor.
- After 1991 his religious order prohibited traveling with minors; all Dominick trips occurred after this prohibition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2423(b) requires sole purpose or permits dual purposes | McGuire's travels had legitimate retreat purposes; sex was a byproduct, not the sole purpose. | Travel could not be for illicit sex if business/retreats were primary; intent must be sex-focused. | Dominate purpose not required; travel with intent to engage in illicit conduct shown |
| Sufficiency of evidence that travel was for illicit sexual conduct | Evidence showed a pattern of molestation tied to trips with boys. | Evidence did not prove sex was the travel's purpose; could be incidental. | Jury reasonably convicted; travel with Dominick was to molest during retreats |
| Admissibility of testimony from other victims under Rule 404(b) and Rules 413-414 | Other-bad-acts evidence is admissible to prove MO and propensity; necessary for corroboration. | Such testimony risks undue prejudice and should be limited under Rule 403. | Admissible; probative MO evidence and 413-414 testimony allowed with 403 balancing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vang, 128 F.3d 1065 (7th Cir. 1997) (approved instruction that sex need not be sole purpose but dominant or primary)
- United States v. Meacham, 115 F.3d 1488 (10th Cir. 1997) (defines travel purpose in Mann Act context)
- United States v. Snow, 507 F.2d 22 (7th Cir. 1974) (discusses purpose versus incidental activity in travel cases)
- United States v. Hitt, 473 F.3d 146 (5th Cir. 2006) (dominant purpose discussions in Mann Act cases)
- United States v. Julian, 427 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005) (cases defining 'dominant' purpose in Mann Act prosecutions)
- United States v. Zahursky, 580 F.3d 515 (7th Cir. 2009) (Rule 404(b) admissibility groundwork)
- United States v. Rogers, 587 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2009) (propensity evidence under Rules 413-414)
- Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944) (Supreme Court on dominant purpose language in Mann Act)
- Ghadiali v. United States, 17 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1927) (contrast on purpose of transportation and illicit objective)
- Hansen v. Haff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934) (distinction between purpose and incidental elements in travel)