United States v. Winckelmann
2011 CAAF LEXIS 1061
| C.A.A.F. | 2011Background
- Appellant Winckelmann, a U.S. Army Lt. Col., was convicted after pleas by the panel of officer members of multiple offenses under the UCMJ and federal statute § 2422(b).
- The ACCA initially set aside two findings and affirmed the remainder, including a finding of attempted enticement of a minor via online chat, and a sentence including forfeiture of all pay and a dismissal.
- The convening authority later altered the forfeiture portion, ultimately approving only confinement for 31 years and a dismissal; the forfeiture aspect remained unsettled in final action.
- The central questioned Specification 3 of Charge III involved an online chat with a person the defendant believed to be a 15-year-old, containing the line “u free tonight.”
- The military judge failed to define “substantial step,” and the ACCA’s decision split on whether the chat line sufficed as a substantial step toward enticement.
- The Supreme Court reversed as to Specification 3, holding the line did not constitute a substantial step, and held the forfeiture error not prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 'u free tonight' constitutes a substantial step under § 2422(b). | United States contends the line, read with context, shows a substantial step toward enticement. | Winckelmann argues there was no concrete plan or travel; insufficient to amount to a substantial step. | Not a substantial step; specification reversed. |
| Whether affirming forfeiture of pay was prejudicial when final action did not approve any forfeiture. | United States maintains the forfeiture error was reversible prejudice. | Winckelmann asserts no prejudice since automatic forfeitures applied and final action lacked forfeiture. | Not prejudicial; affirmed the forfeiture-portion ruling despite error. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Young, 613 F.3d 735 (8th Cir. 2010) (elements of attempt under § 2422(b))
- United States v. Brand, 467 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2006) (substantial step and grooming concepts in enticement cases)
- United States v. Chambers, 642 F.3d 588 (7th Cir. 2011) (definition of substantial step in travel contexts)
- United States v. Goetzke, 494 F.3d 1231 (9th Cir. 2007) (substantial step must show unequivocal intent toward crime)
- United States v. Yost, 479 F.3d 815 (11th Cir. 2007) (online interactions and substantial step considerations)
- United States v. Nestor, 574 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2009) (online solicitations and arrangements as substantial step indicators)