Introduction

The case of United States of America v. Richard Roman (795 F.3d 511) deliberated a significant issue concerning the interpretation of 18 U.S.C. §2422(b), which addresses the use of interstate commerce facilities to solicit minors for unlawful sexual activities. Richard Roman, the defendant, was convicted of attempting to use such facilities to persuade a minor to engage in sexual activity. This commentary explores the background of the case, the court's judgment, the legal precedents cited, and the broader implications for future jurisprudence.

Summary of the Judgment

Richard Roman entered a conditional guilty plea to violating 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) by attempting to use interstate commerce facilities (the Internet and cellular phone) to persuade a minor to engage in unlawful sexual activities. Roman contested the denial of his motions to dismiss the indictment, arguing that his communications were solely with an adult intermediary (an undercover agent) and not directly with the minor child. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial, upholding Roman's conviction. The court reasoned that communicating through an adult intermediary with the intent to persuade a minor constitutes an attempt under §2422(b), aligning with interpretations from other circuits.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court extensively referenced prior cases to support its decision. Notably:

• United States v. Harmon (593 Fed.Appx. 455): Affirmed that attempts to solicit minors through adult intermediaries satisfy §2422(b).
• United States v. Hite (769 F.3d 1154): Supported the view that using intermediaries to influence a minor's assent is prosecutable.
• United States v. Laureys (653 F.3d 27): Although partly dissenting, acknowledged that persuasion aimed at obtaining a minor's assent via an intermediary falls within §2422(b).

These cases collectively establish that the use of adult intermediaries does not absolve defendants from liability under §2422(b) if the intent is to persuade a minor.

Legal Reasoning

The court based its reasoning on the plain language of §2422(b), focusing on the defendant's intent to solicit the minor's assent for unlawful sexual activity. The statute criminalizes the act of persuasion itself, irrespective of whether it directly targets the minor or utilizes an intermediary. By analyzing Roman's communications and intentions, the court determined that his actions met the statutory criteria for an attempt under §2422(b).

Furthermore, the court emphasized that intermediaries can be a natural extension of persuasive efforts. The defendant's substantial steps—such as purchasing gifts and making detailed plans to engage with the minor—demonstrated a clear intent to proceed with unlawful activity, thereby fulfilling the elements required for an attempted offense.

Impact

This judgment reinforces and clarifies the scope of §2422(b), particularly concerning the use of intermediaries in attempts to solicit minors. By affirming that communications with adult intermediaries intended to secure a minor's assent are prosecutable, the court sets a precedent that deters individuals from using such channels to obscure their illicit intentions. Future cases will likely reference this decision to support prosecutions where intermediaries are involved, thereby strengthening the legal framework against sexual exploitation of minors over digital platforms.

Complex Concepts Simplified

18 U.S.C. §2422(b)

This federal statute makes it illegal to use any interstate communication facility—like the Internet or telephone—to attempt to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce any individual under 18 years of age to engage in unlawful sexual activity. The focus is on the attempt to secure the minor's agreement (assent) to participate in such activities.

Attempt Under Criminal Law

An "attempt" in criminal law involves the intent to commit a crime coupled with a substantial step towards its completion. Under §2422(b), attempting to solicit a minor through any means, including intermediaries, meets this criterion if the defendant demonstrates clear intent and takes significant actions towards engaging the minor in sexual activities.

Rule of Lenity

This legal principle dictates that any ambiguous criminal law should be interpreted in favor of the defendant. However, in this case, the court found §2422(b) to be unambiguous in criminalizing attempts to persuade minors, even when intermediaries are involved, thus not requiring leniency.

Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Roman underscores the broad applicability of 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) in combating the solicitation of minors through intermediaries. By affirming that the use of adult intermediaries to obtain a minor's assent constitutes an attempt under the statute, the court enhances legal protections against sexual exploitation facilitated by modern communication technologies. This decision aligns with and reinforces interpretations from other circuits, providing a cohesive and robust framework for prosecuting similar offenses in the future.