United States v. Pierce
2011 CAAF LEXIS 1054
| C.A.A.F. | 2011Background
- Pierce was convicted by general court-martial of attempting to entice a minor via the Internet under Article 134, UCMJ, with a specification alleging actions toward a person he believed to be 13.
- The online communications occurred in a Yahoo! chat room with an undercover agent posing as a 13-year-old; the agent was in California while Pierce was in Washington.
- The key legal issue concerned whether the term ‘any facility or means of interstate commerce’ in 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) includes the Internet, and whether the military judge’s instruction sufficed.
- The Army Court of Criminal Appeals held the military judge erred by omitting the interstate commerce language in the instructions, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The Government and Pierce proceeded under Article 67, UCMJ, challenging the ACCA ruling and the scope of the clause-3 offense instructions.
- The CAAF held that the Internet falls within the § 2422(b) jurisdictional language as a matter of law, but remanded for factual sufficiency review to assess the clause-3 finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Internet fit the § 2422(b) ‘any facility or means of interstate commerce’ | Pierce argued the ACCA correctly found error; Internet may not be a facility or means. | Pierce contends the instruction omission prejudiced him; the government argues the Internet suffices. | Yes; Internet qualifies as facility or means of interstate commerce. |
| Were the jury instructions sufficient to convey § 2422(b) elements | Pierce maintained the instructions were deficient by not clearly tying to interstate commerce. | Government contends the instruction properly instructed the elements and allowed a fact question for use of the Internet. | Instruction was proper; evidence supported the fact that the Internet was used. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Giordano, 442 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2006) (statutory interpretation of means of interstate commerce)
- United States v. Marek, 238 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2001) (interpretation of interstate commerce jurisdictional elements)
- Dupuy v. Dupuy, 511 F.2d 641 (5th Cir. 1975) (jurisdictional element interpretation)
- United States v. Barlow, 568 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2009) (Internet as facility or means of interstate commerce)
- United States v. Tykarsky, 446 F.3d 458 (3d Cir. 2006) (Internet as instrumentality and channel of interstate commerce)
- United States v. Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2004) (Congress power to regulate Internet as interstate instrumentality)
- United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (S. Ct. 1995) (jury determines questions of fact; judge handles law)
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (S. Ct. 1995) (Commerce Clause channels and instrumentalities authority)