Dеfendants-appellants Anthony Griffith and Christopher Griffith, who are brothers, appeal from a judgment of conviction entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Baer, /.), following a jury trial, convicting each of them of transporting an individual in interstate commerce with the intent that she engage in prostitution in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2423, of using a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of that conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), and of conspiracy to violate each of the aforementioned laws. The district court sentenced Anthony Griffith to 126 months’ imprisonment and Christopher Griffith to 120 months’ imprisonment. The court also sentenced each of the Griffiths to supervised release periods of three years and imposed special assessments of $400.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
From at least April 1999 until their arrests on May 8, 1999, Anthony Griffith and his brother Christopher Griffith recruited into prostitution minors and young women in Bronx County and other locations in New York. On the afternoon of April 28, 1999, fifteen-year-old Ebony, 1 eighteen-year-old Larae Davis, and another girl were standing outside their high school in the Bronx. Ebony was talking with some other friends in a car when the Griffiths pulled up in their car. Davis went to speak with Christopher Griffith, the driver of the car. While they were speaking, Anthony Griffith, who was sitting in the passenger seat, called Ebony over. Anthony аsked Ebony her age; instead of telling him that her real age was fifteen, Ebony told him that she was seventeen. The Griffiths asked Ebony and Davis if they wanted to go for a ride. Both girls got into the back seat of the car and the four drove off. After driving for a time, they stopped in a parking lot where Anthony and Davis switched places, leaving Christopher and Davis in the front seat, and Anthony and Ebony in the back seat.
During their drive, Christopher informed Davis that she could “make $500 to $600 a day” prostituting herself and told her that this would involve her “hav[ing] to have sex with white men, oral sex and stuff like that.” In addition, he told her that if he wanted to, he would force her, against her will, to perform oral sex on him at that moment. Christopher then received a call on his cellular telephone, which he told Davis was from a girl who “need[ed] more condoms.” They then drove to a street corner where they picked up the caller, and all five drove to a McDonald’s parking lot. Once there, Anthony asked Ebony to go for a walk. During their walk, Anthony “talk[ed] about making fast money like 400, 500 a day.” While Anthony and Ebony were away from the car, Davis told Christopher that she was not interested in prostituting herself, and he drove her to a subway station, where she got on a train and went home.
When Ebony and Anthony returned, only Christopher and the girl Christopher had received the telephone call from were at thе car. When Ebony inquired about Davis’s absence, she was told not to worry about Davis, and the four of them drove to a parking lot in the Bronx. Anthony then instructed Ebony to perform oral sex on him while Christopher videotaped them. *343 Then Christopher told Ebony to perform oral sex on him and gave the video camera to the other girl to videotape them. After videotaping Ebony performing sex acts on them, she was videotaped stating a false birth date Anthony had instructed her to recite “[b]ecause they wanted [her] to be 18.”
Later that same day, Ebony began prostituting herself. Anthony gave her condoms, quarters, a phone number to call when she made a certain amount of money, and told her what to charge for different sex acts. The Griffiths also gave her tequila to “help calm [her] down.” Until the time of the Griffiths’ May 8 arrest, ten days after they first picked up Ebony, she remained with them and prostituted herself, giving all of the money she made to Anthony. In addition to Ebony, the Grif-fiths also had a number of other girls working for them as prostitutes. On two occasions during the ten-day period that Ebony was with the Griffiths, they drove her to their mother’s house in New Jersey to “get cleaned up” and then brought her back to New York to continue prostituting herself.
On May 3, 1999, Ebony’s father called the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and reported that Ebony had been abducted. The FBI worked with dеtectives of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) pursuing leads to try to locate the Griffiths. On May 8, 1999, Christopher Griffith was pulled over in the Bronx and placed under arrest. After he arrived at the precinct, Christopher called Anthony and told him to come there. Christopher was then given Miranda warnings, and in response waived his constitutional rights in writing and agreed to speak with NYPD Detective Victor Harris and FBI Special- Agent Michael McAn-drew, who specializes in crimes against children, including sexual exploitation of children. Agent McAndrew testified at trial that during the interview, Christopher stated that he had girls working for him who “used their bodies to make money,” and “that on several occasions he took girls to ... Teaneck, New Jersey to his mom’s house.” McAndrew further testified that Christopher explained that “when they went to the house in Teaneck, New Jersey, they just washed up, and he took [the girls] back to New York and they went back to work, using their bodies to make money.”
McAndrew also testified that early in the interview Christopher “made a comment about their [sic] being a tape that would prove that he didn’t do anything wrong,” but that when Detective Harris later asked Christopher about the tape, he responded that there was no tape. Following a break in the interview, McAndrew and Harris again asked Christopher about the tape, and he told them that the “tаpe was a personal matter and he did not want to discuss it” with them.
In response to Christopher’s telephone call, Anthony came to the same precinct and was also placed under arrest. At the outset of an interview with NYPD Detective John Wynne, Anthony also waived his constitutional rights and made oral, written, and videotaped statements regarding the events at issue. At trial, Wynne testified to the oral statements, read the written statement into the record, and the twenty-five-minute videotape was played before the jury. In these statements, Anthony admitted to enticing Ebony to prostitute herself and to be portrayed in a videotape engaging in sex acts. Anthony аlso spoke with Detective Harris, and Harris testified at trial that Anthony told him that this videotape was in Anthony’s Nissan Pathfinder. Harris also testified that Anthony told him where the vehicle was parked and where the tape was located in *344 the vehicle, and that Anthony gave him the keys to the Pathfinder and consented in writing to a search of the vehicle.
Subsequent to his interview with Wynne, Anthony was interviewed by Agent McAndrew. McAndrew testified at trial that Anthony told him “that on two separate occasions he took Ebony to the house in Teaneck, New Jersey so she could wash up, and after she washed up at the house in Teaneck, he brought her back to New York, and he put her out on the streеt on Fordham Road to work, and that Ebony worked as a prostitute for him.”
Following the interview of Anthony, Harris went to the Nissan Pathfinder with a patrol officer and Agent McAndrew. Harris found the videotape and later made an inventory of all the items retrieved from the vehicle. The videotape, which is one hour and fifteen minutes long, was shown to the jury in its raw, uncut form. The tape depicts Ebony performing oral sex on, and engaging in other types of sexual activity with, the Griffiths and various girls. It also contains scenes from the Griffiths’ mother’s house in Teaneck, New Jersey, a fact stipulated to at trial by the Griffiths. On the same videotape, the Griffiths describe their prostitution business in great detail. A videо camera and other items were seized from Christopher’s car earlier that same day. The Griffiths also stipulated at trial that the video camera and blank tape had been shipped in interstate commerce.
On August 10, 1999, the Griffiths were charged in an eight-count indictment. Count One charged the Griffiths with conspiracy to commit the substantive offenses described below. Count Two charged the Griffiths with transporting Ebony in interstate commerce with the intent that she engage in prostitution, and attempting to do so, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2421 and 2. Count Three charged the Griffiths with persuading, inducing, enticing, and coercing Ebony to travel in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution, and attemрting to do so, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422(a) and 2. Count Four charged the Griffiths with transporting a minor, Ebony, in interstate commerce with the intent that she engage in prostitution, and attempting to do so, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423(a) and 2.
Counts Five, Six, and Seven charged the Griffiths with committing the same offenses as those alleged in Counts Two, Three, and Four, respectively, with regard to an individual named Jody Ann, who was also a minor. Count Eight charged use of a minor, Ebony, to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of that conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a) and 2.
The trial began in the district court on March 27, 2000. The witnesses consisted of Ebony, Larae Davis, Jody Ann, Detective Harris, Detective Wynne, Special Agent McAndrew, Suehaye, a minor who testified that the Griffiths attempted to recruit her to work as their prostitute, Stephanie Heather Smith, a friend of the Griffiths, and Ebony’s father. On April 4, 2000, the jury returned guilty verdicts against both Griffiths on all counts.
Following trial, the Griffiths moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c) or, in the alternative, a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. In a memorandum and order filed September 5, 2000, the district court ruled on the Griffiths’ post-trial motions.
United States v. Griffith,
No. 99CR786,
On September 15, 2000, the district court sentenced Anthony Griffith to 126 months’ imprisonment, Christopher Griffith to 120 months’ imprisonment, each of them to supervised released periods of three years and imposed special assessments of $400.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
The Griffiths advance four arguments on appeal: (1) that 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) as applied to their conduct was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause power and that in any event there was insufficient evidence to support the interstate commerce elements required for conviction under that statute; (2) that the district court erred in instructing the jury that 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a) and 2423 do not require the government to prove the Griffiths knew that Ebony was a minor; (3) that the district court’s erroneous instructions regarding scienter as to Ebony’s minor status and the district court’s dismissal, following trial, of the two counts charging violations of §§ 2422(a) and 2423(a) in relation to Jody Ann were prejudicial to them; and (4) that the district court so restricted cross-examination of witnesses as to deny the Griffiths a fair trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
I. The Constitutionality of § 2251(a) as Applied to the Griffiths’ Conduct
The Griffiths first argue that § 2251(a) was unconstitutionally applied in this case and that the evidence at trial did not establish a sufficient interstate nexus to support their convictions. We review challenges to the constitutionality of federal statutes
de novo. United States v. Bianco,
Section 2251(a) provides, in pertinent part:
Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, ... with the intent that such minor engage in, any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct shall be punished as provided under subsection (d), if [1] such person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be transported in interstate or foreign commerce or mailed, [2] if that visual depiction was produced using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or [3] if such visual depiction has actually been transported in interstate or foreign commerce or mailed.
18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).
Relying primarily on
United States v. Lopez,
In Lopez, the Supreme Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (“GFSZA”), 18 U.S.C. § 922(q), which made it a federal offense for any individual to knowingly possess a firearm within a school zone, holding that GFSZA exceeded Congress’ powers under the Commerce *346 Clause. In doing so, the Court found permissible Congress’ regulation of three categories of activities under the Commerce Clause:
First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce. Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities. [Third,] Congress’ commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, ie., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.
Id.
at 558-59,
The
Lopez
Court determined that GFSZA could only plausibly be sustained under the third category. The Court then set forth the following four factors as pertinent in analyzing constitutional challenges to statutes falling within that category: (1) whether the statute relates to an activity that has something to do with “ ‘commerce’ or any sort of economic enterprise”; (2) whether the statute contains a “jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the [activity] in question affects interstate commerce”; (3) whether the statute or its legislative histоry contains congressional findings that the activity sought to be regulated has a substantial effect on interstate commerce; and (4) whether the link between the activity and interstate commerce is not too attenuated.
Id.
at 561-67,
In the more recent case of
Morrison,
the Supreme Court analyzed under the same test the constitutionality of the civil remedy provision of the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”), 42 U.S.C. § 13981. Despite congressional findings of the impact of gender-motivated violence on interstate commercе, the Court concluded that VAWA was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional law-making authority under the Commerce Clause. The Court determined that “the existence of congressional findings is not sufficient, by itself, to sustain the constitutionality of Commerce Clause legislation.”
Morrison,
As with the statutes in question in both
Lopez
and
Momson,
the activity sought to be regulated by § 2251(a), the use of a minor to engage in sex acts in order to produce a visual depiction of that conduct, can be sustained only under the third category of activities — those having a substantial relation to interstate commerce — that Congress may constitutionally regulate under the Commerce Clause. The Griffiths challenge the constitutionality of the statute only in regard to the second of the four factors described above,
ie.,
that the jurisdictional elements of § 2251(a) do not bring the activity regulated within Congress’ Commerce Clause power. In both
Lopez
and
Momson,
the Supreme Court found that the statutes at issue “contain[ed] no jurisdictional element.”
Lopez,
As stated above, a defendant who uses a minor to engage in sexually explicit behavior in order to produce a visual depiction of that conduct may be convicted under § 2251(a) if any of the following three *347 interstate commerсe elements is satisfied: (1) the defendant knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be transported interstate; (2) the visual depiction was produced using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in interstate commerce; or (3) the visual depiction has actually been transported in interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).
The district court instructed the jury that under § 2251(a) the government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of these three jurisdictional elements. The government has conceded that no evidence was produced at trial to satisfy the first interstate nexus and thus that element is nоt at issue on this appeal.
In ruling on the Griffiths’ post-trial motions, the district court found both the second and third interstate elements of § 2251(a) sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements.
Griffith,
Anthony Griffith argues that the “possibl[e]” movement “in a car to New Jersey and back” of the sexually explicit videotape is insufficient to establish the constitutionally required interstate nexus. The Supreme Court has long rejected this line of argument, stating that “where a general regulatory statute bears a substantial relation to commerce, the
de min-imis
character of individual instances arising under that statute is of no consequence.”
Lopez,
The Griffiths also argue that the interstate commerce element was not satisfied here because “there was no evidence that the tape was produced to enter the stream of interstate commerce.” This argument fails because § 2251(a) does not require that a defendant produce the sexually explicit depiction for commercial gain. We have squarely held that “[i]t is well-established that Congress can regulate activities that involve interstate or international transportation of goods and people, regardless of whether the transportation is motivated by a ‘commercial purpose.’ ”
United States v. Sirois,
Moreover, the Griffiths’ reliance on Lopez and Morrison in challenging the constitutionality of the third jurisdictional element of § 2251(a) is misplaced. Both Lopez and Morrison examined Congress’ authority to regulate under the Com *348 merce Clause purely intrastate activity. In contrast, the Griffiths’ activity here was interstate in nature because the “visual depiction [that the Griffiths produced was] actually ... transported ... interstate.” 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).
Becausе it is beyond question that the third jurisdictional element set forth in the statute, the movement of the visual depiction itself in interstate commerce, represents a constitutional exercise of Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause, we hold that § 2251(a) was not unconstitutionally applied to the facts of this case.
The Griffiths further argue that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the third jurisdictional element was satisfied. We review
de novo
a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
United States v. McCarthy,
We also “defer to the jury’s determination of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, and to the jury’s choice of the competing inferences that can be drawn from the evidence.”
United States v. Morrison,
Ebony testified that on the first day she met the Griffiths, April 28, 1999, Christopher Griffith and another individual videotaped her engaging in sex acts in the Bronx with both Anthony and Christopher. Ebony further testified that on two later occasions, the Griffiths transported her to New Jersey and then back to New York, a fact admitted to by both Griffiths during their post-arrest interviews. The videotape found in Anthony’s vehicle contains scenes of Ebony engaging in sexually explicit conduct and scenes from the house in New Jersey to which the Griffiths admittedly took Ebony on two occasions. That one hour and fifteen minute videotape was played uncut to the jury. Thus, given these facts, we conclude that a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the videotaped depiction of Ebony engaging in sexually explicit conduct was in the Griffiths’ possession when they traveled interstate from New York to New Jersey and back to New York.
We therefore reject the Griffiths’ challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their convictions under the third jurisdictional element of § 2251(a).
II. Scienter as to the Minority Status of the Victim Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 21$8 and 2251(a)
The Griffiths next argue that the district court erred in instructing the jury that neither § 2251(a) nor § 2423 require the government to prove that the Griffiths *349 knew that their victims were under the age of eighteen.
A. 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)
Section 2251(a) reads, in pertinent part: Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, ... with the intent that such minor engage in, any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct shall be punished as provided under subsection (d)....
18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).
The question of whether § 2251 contains a scienter requirement was discussed in
United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.,
The second report, issued by a House Committee, stated that “[t]he government must prove that the defendant knew the character of thе visual depictions as depicting a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, but need not prove that the defendant actually knew the person depicted was in fact under 18 years of age.”
Id.
at 77 n. 6,
B. 18 U.S.C. § 2128
The Griffiths advance the same lack of scienter argument with regard to § 2423(a). That provision provides, in pertinent part:
A person who knowingly transports an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce ... with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense ... under this title....
18 U.S.C. § 2423(a).
Although this Circuit has yet to determine whether § 2423 requires knowledge of the victim’s minority status, the three Courts of Aрpeals to have addressed this
*350
issue have held that it does not.
See United States v. Taylor,
In support of their argument, the Grif-fiths cite the district court case of
United States v. Kufrovich,
[i]f “knowingly” applies only to “traveled”[,] it is a superfluous adjective, since it is difficult to imagine how one could travel ‘in interstate commerce without knowing about it. In order to make sense, “knowingly” must refer to the purpose of the traveler, i.e. to engage in a sexual act with a minor. In order to have the purpose to engage in a séxual act with a minor, a persоn must know that the object of the plan is indeed a minor. A statute is not to be construed in such a manner as to produce “positively absurd” results.
Id.
at 256 (citing
X-Citement Video,
In ruling on the Griffiths’ post-trial motions, the district court rejected the statutory construction of § 2423 advanced by the court in Kufrovich. The district court in our case reasoned instead that
[i]n addition to “transportation,” the word “knowingly” might modify “in interstate commerce,” thus eliminating the superfluous problem, i.e., although it may be difficult to travel “unknowingly,” one could easily travel knowingly without realizing that the travel was interstate. Whatever it modifies, “knowingly” does not modify the purpose of the traveler. There is a separate mens rea term modifying “engage in a sexual act,” namely “intent,” and Congress would not likely use twо similar mens rea terms to modify a single clause.
Griffith,
In
Taylor,
the Ninth Circuit reached the same conclusion. In that case, as in our case, the defendant was convicted under § 2423(a) for transporting a minor in interstate commerce for the purpose of prostitution.
It is this distinction between lawful and unlawful conduct that drove the Supreme Court’s holding in
X-Citement Video,
The same cannot be said with regard to the activity prohibited by
*351
§ 2423(a) because, as both the district court here and the Ninth Circuit in
Taylor
observed, a defendant is already on notice that he is committing a crime when he transports an individual of any age in interstate commerce for the purpose of prostitution.
Griffith,
We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in instructing the jury that the government was not required to prove under either § 2251(a) or § 2423(a) that the Griffiths knew that Ebony was a minor.
III. Prejudice in Charge and Spillover Prejudice
The Griffiths next argue that the district court’s error in failing to charge the jury that §§ 2251(a) and 2423(a) contain a knowledge of age element constitutes prejudice requiring reversal on the remaining counts. Because we have found the jury instructions proper in this respect, we reject the Griffiths’ argument regarding prejudice on this ground.
Although it is not completely clear from the Griffiths’ briefs, it seems that they are also arguing that the evidence supporting the dismissed Jody Ann counts infected the jury’s verdict on the remaining counts, thereby resulting in prejudice. We disagree here as well. A defendant bears an extremely heavy burden when claiming prejudicial spillover.
United States v. Friedman,
We consider three factors in determining whether there is a spillover effect sufficiently prejudicial to call for reversal.
United States v. Rooney,
The Griffiths did not suffer any prejudicial spillover. First, the evidence presented in support of the Jody Ann counts could not have incited the jury to any greater degree than the evidence presented to show the remaining counts regarding Ebony. Second, the Jody Ann counts were supported by evidence, primarily her testimony, that was substantially similar in nature to the evidence presented to support the remaining counts. Third, the government’s case with regard to thе remaining counts was extremely strong in light of the testimony of Ebony and the corroboration of that testimony through the videotape and the testimony of other witnesses. Moreover, the Griffiths’ own incriminating statements were nearly identical to the testimony of the government’s witnesses.
Thus, we find the Griffiths suffered no prejudicial spillover warranting reversal of their convictions.
IV. Scope of Cross Examination
Finally, the Griffiths argue that the district court’s limitations on cross-examina *352 tion of witnesses violated their right to a fair trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, they contend that they were unconstitutionally prohibited from questioning Ebony regarding her relationships with men in general, her father in particular, her drug use, and hеr sexual history.
The district court found that any possible responses by Ebony on these subjects would not have been relevant. The Federal Rules of Evidence permit admission of only “relevant evidence,” which is defined as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Fed. R.Evid. 401. We agree with the district court that Ebony’s testimony on these subjects would not have been relevant because it would not have tended to make more or less probable any fact at issue in the case.
In any еvent, the district court permitted both defense counsel to cross-examine Ebony at length regarding the events at issue and lies she had told family and friends as well as lies she had told to the Griffiths. The jury was presented with more than enough evidence from which it could assess Ebony’s credibility.
District courts are afforded wide discretion to impose limitations on the cross-examination of witnesses.
See, e.g., Delaware v. Van Arsdall,
The Griffiths also cryptically allеge the same constitutional violation with regard to the cross-examination of three other witnesses, Jody Ann, a police officer, and Ebony’s father, although they do not cite any specific examples of the court’s restriction of cross-examination of any of these witnesses. Since the Griffiths present no facts to support this bald assertion, we conclude that any limitations the district court may have imposed during cross-examination of those witnesses, like those imposed on cross-examination of Ebony, did not constitute an abuse of its broad discretion.
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Notes
. In order to comply with 18 U.S.C. § 3509, witnesses under the age of eighteen are referred to by only their first names.