United States v. Michael Lindsay
931 F.3d 852
| 9th Cir. | 2019Background
- Lindsay, a U.S. citizen, was indicted for traveling in foreign commerce with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct (18 U.S.C. § 2423(b)), engaging in illicit sexual conduct abroad (§ 2423(c)), attempted witness tampering, and obstruction of justice; a jury convicted him on four counts.
- The § 2423 counts alleged either commercial sex with a minor under 18 or non‑commercial sex with a minor aged 12–16; the verdict form did not distinguish which theory the jury relied on.
- Lindsay sought to admit five videotaped depositions taken in the Philippines (hearsay), which the district court excluded; he also was precluded mid‑trial from introducing Facebook messages discovered shortly before examination.
- The district court instructed the jury that a travel defendant need only have a dominant/significant/motivating purpose to engage in illicit sexual conduct; no “reasonable belief” instruction for § 2423(b) was given.
- At sentencing the district court declined to apply a two‑level Guidelines obstruction enhancement (USSG § 3C1.1), explaining that separate convictions and concurrent sentences adequately accounted for obstructive conduct; the Ninth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing while affirming the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States / Prosecution) | Defendant's Argument (Lindsay) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of § 2423(c) (Commerce Clause) as applied to non‑commercial sex with minors abroad | § 2423(c) legitimately regulates foreign commerce and the non‑commercial part reasonably relates to commercial sex tourism and its economic effects on foreign commerce | § 2423(c) exceeds Congress’s Foreign Commerce Clause power when applied to non‑commercial sexual abuse of minors | Affirmed: Non‑commercial sex with a 12–16 year‑old while traveling abroad fairly relates to foreign commerce under rational‑basis review; statute constitutional as applied. |
| Jury instruction on intent for § 2423(b) (“for the purpose of”) | Instruction allowing conviction when travel was a dominant, significant, or motivating purpose properly captures intent and accounts for mixed motives | “For the purpose of” requires but‑for causation (not merely a motivating purpose) | Affirmed: No plain error; the motivating/dominant purpose instruction was permissible. |
| Reasonable‑belief defense for § 2423(b) (belief that victim was ≥16) | N/A (prosecution opposed any overbroad defense) | A § 2243(c)(1) reasonable‑belief (that victim was ≥16) defense should apply to § 2423(b) | Rejected on plain‑error review: statutory reasonable‑belief defenses are tied to the specific statutes that create them; no obvious error in not giving the § 2243(c)(1) instruction for § 2423(b). |
| Evidentiary rulings: exclusion of Filipino depositions and Facebook messages; admission of other‑acts evidence | Government argued depositions were inadmissible hearsay (no rule 804(b)(1) prerequisites met), Facebook message discovery violation and hearsay, and other‑acts evidence admissible for intent/plan/state of mind | Lindsay argued exclusion violated his right to present a defense and discovery rules; other‑acts evidence was unduly prejudicial | Affirmed: District court did not abuse discretion nor violate constitutional rights—depositons lacked demonstrated unavailability and proper procedure; Facebook message was late and hearsay; other‑acts admitted for non‑propensity purposes and probative value outweighed prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Clark, 435 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (framework upholding § 2423(c) as relating to foreign commerce for commercial sex)
- United States v. Pepe, 895 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 2018) (interpretation of travel element as encompassing entire trip)
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (interstate commerce categories)
- United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (limits on Commerce Clause regulation)
- Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014) (but‑for causation in statutes using “results from”)
- United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (procedural‑error standard for guideline calculation)