Thursday, December 18, 2008
Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit issues three Indiana decisions today
In U. S. v. Derek S. Davey (ND Ind., CJ Miller), a 12-page opinion, Judge Wood writes:
In United States v. Gladish, 536 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2008), this court held that explicit sexual talk does not, by itself, amount to the kind of “substantial step” needed to prove an attempt to violate 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), which forbids knowingly persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing a person under the age of 18 to engage in criminal sexual activity. The present case requires us to decide whether defendant Derek Davey’s conduct similarly fell short of an attempt to violate § 2422(b), or if Davey crossed the line that demarcates criminal conduct. Davey’s case is further complicated by the fact that he pleaded guilty to the § 2422(b) violation and was unsuccessful in persuading the district court to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion to withdraw, and that the factual basis for Davey’s plea establishes that he took several substantial steps toward completion of the offense. We therefore affirm.In U.S. v. Donald Zawada (ND Ind., CJ Miller), a 9-page opinion, Judge Wood writes:
In this case, as in United States v. Davey, No. 07-3533 (issued today), we must decide what it takes to commit the offense of attempting to violate the statute that prohibits knowingly persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing a minor to engage in criminal sexual activity, see 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). A jury found Donald Zawada guilty of attempting to violate both § 2422(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1470, which prohibits knowingly transferring obscene material to a person under the age of 16. There is ample evidence in the record to support the jury’s verdict on the latter offense. Our review of the § 2422(b) conviction on this point is for plain error only, as we explain later. From that perspective, we have no trouble concluding that the steps Zawada took to bring about a forbidden sexual encounter with a minor were sub- stantial enough to support the attempt conviction. We therefore affirm.In Jim Aaron v. Susan J. Mahl (ND Ind., CJ Miller), an 18-page opinion, Judge Tinder concludes:
We AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judg- ment on the interpleader claims to Merrill Lynch, as well as the award of attorneys’ fees.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 18, 2008 11:55 AM
Posted to Ind. (7th Cir.) Decisions