United States v. Juvenile Male, No. 12-10005 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant, a juvenile male, appealed the district court's adjudication of delinquency on six counts of aggravated sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2241(c). The court concluded that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the juvenile delinquency proceedings and that section 2241(c) is not unconstitutionally vague. The court rejected defendant's claim that the district court erred applying the means rea element of section 2241(c), denying the Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal as to Counts 3 and 5 because there was insufficient evidence of anal penetration, and admitting the hearsay statements of a victim through the testimony of a social worker under Rule 803(4). The court remanded the portion of the district court's judgment to allow specific consideration of defendant's suspension request where Rule 35(a)'s fourteen-day time limit had expired and there was no record of whether the district court weighed factors bearing on the suspension while it had jurisdiction to do so. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's disposition decision, remanded for consideration of all disposition options, including a suspension of delinquency, and affirmed in all other respects.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel vacated the district court’s adjudication of juvenile delinquency on six counts of aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c), remanded for consideration of all disposition options, including a suspension of delinquency, and affirmed in all other respects. The panel held that the district court had jurisdiction over the defendant’s juvenile delinquency proceedings pursuant to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5032, because the government presented a valid certification as to the need for the juvenile proceedings to take place in federal court. The panel held that a certification filed in the district court by a United States Attorney is presumed to be accurate, absent circumstances calling into question its accuracy or validity. Accordingly, the fact that the record was bare as to whether the government made the “requisite investigation” with county or state law enforcement authorities to determine whether the state would prosecute the defendant before it certified that position did not compel the conclusion that the district court lacked jurisdiction. The panel held that § 2241 is not unconstitutionally vague in providing for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement when both the victim and the perpetrator are under the age of twelve, and does not violate principles of notice within due process. The panel held that the district court did not err in applying the mens rea element of § 2241(c) because the statute does not require that there be knowledge of the sexual nature of the act. The panel held that the district court did not err in denying a motion for judgment of acquittal as to two counts alleging anal penetration. The district court also did not err in admitting the hearsay statements of a victim through the testimony of a social worker for medical diagnosis and treatment. The panel held that the district court erred in denying the defendant’s requests to suspend his status as a juvenile delinquent under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a). The panel held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue its order denying the defendant’s motion because Rule 35(a)’s fourteen-day time limit had expired. The panel held that the district court abused its discretion in not suspending the determination of delinquency at the defendant’s disposition hearing because the record did not show that the court weighed factors bearing on suspension. Judge Berzon concurred in the majority opinion with regard to jurisdiction, sufficiency of the evidence, and the evidentiary issue. She also concurred in the decision to remand with respect to the delinquency finding, but unlike the majority, she concluded that the only proper outcome on remand would be suspension of the delinquency determination due to the defendant’s age and circumstances, the dire possible consequences for his future in light of the recent proliferation of sexual offender registration statutes, and the lack of prosecutorial guidance provided by § 2241(c) as applied to a child offender himself under twelve years old.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.