0 0
Supreme Court of the United States - 513 U.S. 64
Tags: Criminal law, Child pornography, Mens rea
The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision that the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977 was facially unconstitutional. The Court determined that the term "knowingly" in Title 18 U.S.C. § 2252 modifies the phrase "the use of a minor" and implies some form of scienter. The Court is cautious about relying solely on the grammatical reading of a statute, especially in criminal cases, and has previously interpreted criminal statutes to include a broad scienter requirement. The Court rejected the argument that the statute described a public welfare offense and emphasized the harsh penalties attached to violations of the statute as a significant consideration in determining whether the statute should be construed as dispensing with mens rea.
Justice Stevens argues that the term "knowingly" in a criminal statute modifies each element of the offense identified in the subsection. However, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas disagree with this opinion, stating that the cases cited as authority do not support interpreting an explicit statutory scienter requirement in a manner that its language cannot bear. The Ninth Circuit's interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252 is the only grammatical reading of the statute, which does not require knowledge of the fact that the visual depiction portrays sexually explicit conduct or that a participant in that conduct was a minor. The doctrine of "scrivener's error" cannot be used to rewrite a statute or correct a technical mistake in criminal cases where the meaning intended but inadequately expressed is not absolutely clear. The legislative history of the bill suggests that the requirement of scienter does not extend to the age of performers in cases involving sexually explicit conduct. The scienter requirement applies to the element of the crime that the depiction be of sexually explicit conduct, but not to the element that the depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in such conduct. It is important to note that Justice Stevens' argument may be in error as it contradicts what Congress has specifically prescribed regarding criminal intent.
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.