Clarifying Non-Testimonial Vital Records and the Unavailability of a Mistake-of-Age Defense under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a): United States v. Burns (6th Cir. 2025)

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date: October 20, 2025

Panel: Judges Kethledge (author), Larsen, and Bloomekatz

Publication Status: Not recommended for publication

Introduction

In United States v. Burns, the Sixth Circuit affirmed convictions for sexual exploitation of minors under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and witness tampering under 18 U.S.C. § 1512, along with a below-Guidelines sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment. The decision is significant for its clear reaffirmation of several principles: (1) a birth certificate is a non-testimonial vital record and thus does not implicate the Confrontation Clause under the Supreme Court’s recent articulation in Smith v. Arizona; (2) the Constitution does not compel recognition of a mistake-of-age defense to § 2251(a); (3) district courts may reasonably limit cross-examination that targets general credibility rather than showing bias or motive; (4) the government’s production obligations under Criminal Rule 16 are satisfied when materials are produced promptly upon acquisition; and (5) urging a witness via jail calls to “remember nothing” constitutes sufficient evidence of witness tampering.

The case arises from the defendant’s production of sexually explicit images and videos involving two minors, Trinity and Emilie, after they absconded from a Nashville shelter for minor victims of human trafficking. The government’s proof included a birth certificate, shelter and law enforcement testimony, and a recorded jail call in which the defendant attempted to influence testimonial memory. On appeal, Burns mounted evidentiary, constitutional, sufficiency, and sentencing challenges. The Sixth Circuit rejected all of them.

Summary of the Opinion

Evidence admission: The court upheld admission of Trinity’s birth certificate as relevant (Fed. R. Evid. 401), timely produced under Rule 16 given that the government turned it over within a day of acquiring it, and non-testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes, consistent with Smith v. Arizona (2024).
Mistake-of-age defense: The panel reaffirmed that the First Amendment does not require availability of a mistake-of-age defense in § 2251(a) prosecutions (United States v. Humphrey) and held that excluding evidence of the victims’ alleged misstatements about age did not violate the Sixth Amendment right to present a complete defense or the Confrontation Clause.
Sufficiency of the evidence: The court held that the government presented ample evidence that both victims were minors, including the birth certificate, shelter testimony, an HSI agent’s verification, and Emilie’s own testimony that she went to “juvie” afterward. The witness-tampering conviction was also supported by a recorded jail call where the defendant encouraged a witness to say she remembered nothing.
Sentencing: The 240-month sentence—well below the Guidelines range of 360 months to life—was affirmed as substantively reasonable. The district court considered and reasonably rejected the mitigating arguments (alleged deception by the victims, the defendant’s difficult life, and an overstated criminal history).
Restitution: The court declined to review restitution because the defendant did not appeal the amended judgment imposing it, consistent with Manrique v. United States (2017).

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role

Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024): The Supreme Court clarified that the Confrontation Clause limits the admission of “testimonial” statements—those created with the primary purpose of use in a later criminal prosecution. The panel applied this framework to hold that a birth certificate, a vital record made as a matter of course, is non-testimonial. This neutralizes Confrontation Clause objections to admitting such records to prove age.
United States v. Humphrey, 608 F.3d 955 (6th Cir. 2010): Humphrey held that the First Amendment does not require a mistake-of-age defense for § 2251(a). Burns attempted to recast this argument, but the court treated Humphrey as controlling, reaffirming that age is effectively a strict-liability element in these prosecutions.
United States v. Reynolds, 86 F.4th 332 (6th Cir. 2023): Reynolds provides the Sixth Amendment framework for exclusion of defense evidence, focusing on whether excluded evidence would have created a reasonable doubt not otherwise present. The panel held that evidence of the victims’ alleged deception about age does not go to any element of § 2251(a) and thus would not create such reasonable doubt.
United States v. Taylor, 127 F.4th 1008 (6th Cir. 2025): Taylor underscores that Confrontation Clause limitations revolve around restricting cross-examination that probes bias, prejudice, or motive. The panel concluded that Burns sought only to impeach general credibility via alleged past untruthfulness (not to show bias or motive), so the court’s limits on cross did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
United States v. Llanez-Garcia, 735 F.3d 483 (6th Cir. 2013): Interprets Criminal Rule 16 to require production of materials within the government’s possession, custody, or control and only after acquisition. The government here produced the birth certificate promptly upon receiving it; with no bad faith, there was no Rule 16 violation.
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979): The sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard: a conviction stands if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The panel applied Jackson to uphold both the § 2251(a) and the witness-tampering convictions.
United States v. Johnson, 79 F.4th 684 (6th Cir. 2023): Supports upholding witness-tampering convictions where a defendant urges a witness to lie. Burns’s recorded jail call telling Emilie to say she remembered nothing satisfied this standard.
United States v. Nunley, 29 F.4th 824 (6th Cir. 2022): Addresses substantive reasonableness review of sentences; a district court’s weighing of § 3553(a) factors is owed deference, and mitigating circumstances are not “so compelling” as to require a shorter sentence unless they truly overwhelm the balance. The panel found no abuse of discretion.
Manrique v. United States, 581 U.S. 116 (2017): Requires a notice of appeal from an amended judgment imposing restitution to confer appellate jurisdiction. Burns failed to appeal the amended judgment, foreclosing review of restitution.
Standards of review: Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion (United States v. Davis, 306 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2002)); constitutional issues are reviewed de novo (United States v. Underwood, 129 F.4th 912 (6th Cir. 2025), as cited in the opinion).

Legal Reasoning

Admitting Trinity’s birth certificate:
- Relevance (Rule 401): A shelter employee tied the document to Trinity by testifying the shelter received the same document from the referring agency, making it more probable that Trinity was a minor at the relevant time.
- Discovery (Rule 16): The government produced the document within a day of receiving it after realizing it might be needed because it had lost contact with Trinity and a relative. Under Llanez-Garcia, Rule 16 requires production only once the government acquires the document; the prompt production without bad faith satisfied the Rule.
- Confrontation Clause: Applying Smith v. Arizona’s “primary purpose” test, the court held a birth certificate is a routine vital record, not created for prosecution, and therefore non-testimonial; admission does not trigger the Confrontation Clause.
Mistake-of-age and limits on defense evidence and cross-examination:
- First Amendment: Under Humphrey, no constitutional right to a mistake-of-age defense exists in § 2251(a) prosecutions. The panel treated this as settled law in the circuit.
- Sixth Amendment—right to present a complete defense: Under Reynolds, the question is whether excluded evidence would have created reasonable doubt on an element not otherwise in dispute. Because misrepresentations about age do not negate any element of § 2251(a), excluding that evidence did not violate the right to present a defense.
- Confrontation Clause—scope of cross-examination: Under Taylor, Confrontation Clause violations arise where courts unduly restrict cross that exposes bias, motive, or prejudice. The proposed cross here targeted only general credibility (prior untruthfulness about age), not bias or motive; limits were therefore permissible.
Sufficiency of the evidence on § 2251(a):
- Applying Jackson, the court found abundant proof that both victims were minors:
  - Trinity: her birth certificate showed a 2005 birth year.
  - Both: a shelter employee testified the facility housed only minors and that neither “became adults” in February or March 2020; an HSI agent testified the agency confirmed their minor status.
  - Emilie: she testified she went to “juvie,” and although she said she was born in 2002 (turning 18 at some point in 2020), the jury could rationally find she was still under 18 during the events in February 2020.
Sufficiency of the evidence on witness tampering:
- Under Johnson, urging a witness to lie suffices. The recorded jail call captured Burns prompting Emilie to claim she remembered nothing, after she initially feigned non-recognition but then recalled him, his penchant for “taking pictures,” and the Waffle House. A rational juror could find corrupt persuasion to present false testimony.
Sentencing and restitution:
- Sentence: The district court recognized the Guidelines range (360 months to life), varied downward to 240 months, and expressly considered the asserted mitigators: alleged deception by the victims, Burns’s difficult life, and a claimed overstatement of criminal history. Under Nunley’s deferential substantive reasonableness review, none of these factors “necessitated” a lower sentence.
- Restitution: Because Burns did not appeal the amended judgment incorporating restitution, Manrique foreclosed review.

Impact

Proof of minority via vital records and circumstantial evidence: Prosecutors can rely on birth certificates and corroborating circumstantial testimony (e.g., juvenile detention, shelter policies, law enforcement verification) to establish age beyond a reasonable doubt, even if a victim is unavailable or noncooperative.
Discovery timing under Rule 16: Late discovery is not necessarily a violation if the government promptly discloses newly acquired materials without bad faith. Defense counsel should anticipate that critical records may surface close to trial and prepare to address them on the merits rather than exclusion alone.
First Amendment and § 2251(a): The Sixth Circuit remains aligned with the position that § 2251(a) does not constitutionally require a mistake-of-age defense. Defendants cannot constitutionalize their misunderstanding of age to defeat liability.
Contours of cross-examination: Limits on cross aimed at general credibility (as opposed to bias or motive) will usually withstand Confrontation Clause challenges, especially where the line of questioning targets facts irrelevant to the elements of the offense.
Witness tampering jurisprudence: Attempts to induce “no memory” testimony, particularly captured on recorded jail calls, remain strong evidence of corrupt persuasion under § 1512. Defendants should assume jail calls will be used against them.
Appellate preservation of restitution issues: Manrique continues to require a separate notice of appeal from amended judgments imposing restitution. Practitioners must vigilantly docket a timely appeal of any amended restitution judgment.
Sentencing deference: Substantial downward variances will rarely be disturbed absent clear procedural error or a compelling showing that the district court’s weighing of § 3553(a) was outside the range of reasonableness.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Testimonial vs. non-testimonial records (Confrontation Clause): The Confrontation Clause applies to testimonial statements created primarily for use at trial. Vital records, like birth certificates, are created for administrative purposes, not litigation, and are thus non-testimonial. They may be admitted without calling the record creator as a witness.
Rule 16 discovery obligations: The government must permit inspection of items within its possession, custody, or control. If the government doesn’t have a document, it need not produce it. When it acquires the document, it must disclose it promptly. Absent bad faith or prejudice, late-acquired but promptly produced records are generally admissible.
Mistake-of-age and § 2251(a): For sexual exploitation of a minor, the government need not prove the defendant knew the victim’s age. A defendant’s belief about age is not a defense, and evidence of supposed deception about age generally does not negate any element of the crime.
Right to present a defense: The Constitution protects a meaningful chance to present evidence that addresses the actual elements of the charged offense. Evidence that does not bear on those elements—even if probative of something else—may be excluded without violating the Sixth Amendment.
Confrontation Clause limits on cross-examination: Defendants have the right to expose a witness’s bias, motive, or prejudice. Courts may restrict cross that merely attacks general credibility or strays into collateral, minimally probative topics.
Jackson v. Virginia standard (sufficiency of evidence): Appellate courts view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. The question is not whether the appellate court believes the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether any rational juror could so find.
Witness tampering via “memory” manipulation: Encouraging a witness to say they remember nothing, especially after establishing they do remember, is a classic form of corrupt persuasion and can satisfy § 1512 even without explicit threats.
Appellate review of sentences: Sentences are reviewed for procedural and substantive reasonableness with substantial deference to the district court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors. A below-Guidelines sentence is often a strong indicator of reasonableness.
Appealing restitution: If restitution is imposed in an amended judgment, a separate notice of appeal is generally required to secure appellate review of that order.

Conclusion

United States v. Burns is a comprehensive reaffirmation of settled principles in child-exploitation prosecutions and related procedural law. The Sixth Circuit:

Confirmed that birth certificates are non-testimonial and admissible to prove age;
Reaffirmed that the First Amendment does not require a mistake-of-age defense under § 2251(a);
Clarified that excluding evidence of alleged age deception neither violates the right to present a defense nor the Confrontation Clause where it targets non-elements and general credibility;
Applied Jackson to uphold convictions based on a mix of documentary, testimonial, and circumstantial evidence;
Upheld a witness-tampering conviction grounded in a recorded jail call urging false testimony;
Affirmed a substantial downward variance as substantively reasonable; and
Refused to review restitution due to the absence of an appeal from the amended judgment.

Though not precedential, Burns distills practical lessons: prosecutors can prove minority with vital records and corroboration; defense counsel cannot rely on mistake-of-age arguments or late-disclosure objections when the government acts promptly and without bad faith; and jail calls are potent evidence in witness-tampering prosecutions. Finally, meticulous appellate practice remains essential—especially when restitution is imposed via an amended judgment.

Key Citations (as used by the court)

Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024)
United States v. Humphrey, 608 F.3d 955 (6th Cir. 2010)
United States v. Reynolds, 86 F.4th 332 (6th Cir. 2023)
United States v. Taylor, 127 F.4th 1008 (6th Cir. 2025)
United States v. Llanez-Garcia, 735 F.3d 483 (6th Cir. 2013)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979)
United States v. Johnson, 79 F.4th 684 (6th Cir. 2023)
United States v. Nunley, 29 F.4th 824 (6th Cir. 2022)
Manrique v. United States, 581 U.S. 116 (2017)