United States v. Richard Rutgerson
822 F.3d 1223
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Rutgerson answered an ad on Backpage that (via undercover detectives) represented a 15‑year‑old "Amberly" offering sexual services; detectives posed as Amberly and arranged a meeting.
- Email/text negotiations occurred over three days; messages discussed price, specific sexual acts (GFE, PSE, "extras"), condom use, and Amberly repeatedly stated she was 15.
- Rutgerson negotiated price (e.g., $175–$300), drove to the hotel, and was arrested at the La Quinta Inn; police found cash and condoms on him.
- At post‑arrest interview Rutgerson admitted he believed Amberly was 15 and said he came to "hang out" though "nine times out of ten that’s what happens."
- Charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) for attempting to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor into prostitution/illegal sex; convicted by jury and sentenced to the 10‑year mandatory minimum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to show inducement under § 2422(b) | Government: Rutgerson offered money and actively negotiated terms, which constitutes inducement/attempt. | Rutgerson: This was a market transaction; Amberly held herself out as a willing prostitute so no persuasion/inducement occurred. | Held: Sufficient evidence; offering payment and active negotiation constitute inducement/attempt. |
| Entrapment / predisposition | Government: Rutgerson initiated contact, persisted after learning age, negotiated, and had web history showing searches for "young" escorts — shows predisposition. | Rutgerson: He was entrapped; agents induced him and he lacked predisposition; no prior offenses. | Held: No entrapment as a matter of law; jury reasonably found predisposition. |
| Refusal to give defendant's proposed jury instruction | Government: Trial court’s statutory instruction adequately informed jury of elements including attempt. | Rutgerson: Requested instruction would clarify that he must have persuaded/induced the (believed) minor. | Held: Court properly refused — proposed instruction was substantive and misleading (failed to account for attempt); given instructions covered defense. |
| Exclusion of evidence that detectives found no indication Rutgerson visited minors‑oriented sites | Government: Cross‑testimony and other evidence covered phone forensic results; exclusion was within discretion. | Rutgerson: Excluding Detective Mauro’s testimony about no evidence of visits to minors sites hindered ability to rebut predisposition. | Held: Exclusion was error but harmless — similar evidence admitted, and overwhelming evidence of predisposition supported verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ramirez, 426 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2005) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Hunt, 187 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 1999) (Jackson standard cited)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (any rational trier of fact standard for sufficiency review)
- United States v. Lee, 603 F.3d 904 (11th Cir. 2010) (elements for attempt: intent and substantial step)
- United States v. Yost, 479 F.3d 815 (11th Cir. 2007) (definition of attempt elements)
- United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004) (statute targets inducement/enticing of minors, not just the sex act)
- United States v. Panfil, 338 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2003) (ordinary meanings of persuade/induce/entice)
- United States v. Boffil‑Rivera, 607 F.3d 736 (11th Cir. 2010) (drawing inferences in favor of jury verdict on sufficiency review)
- United States v. Brown, 43 F.3d 618 (11th Cir. 1995) (entrapment framework and predisposition factors)
- Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992) (prosecution must prove predisposition beyond reasonable doubt after government inducement)