U.S. v. Chambers

• Decision Date: 16 June 2011
• Docket Number: No. 09–3654.,09–3654.
• Citation: 642 F.3d 588,85 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 767
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,v.Jeffrey Dean CHAMBERS, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

642 F.3d 588

85 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 767

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Jeffrey Dean CHAMBERS, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 09–3654.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued Jan. 14, 2011.Decided June 16, 2011.

Linda L. Mullen (argued), Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Rock Island, IL, for Plaintiff–Appellee.Ronald J. Stone (argued), Attorney, Stratton, Giganti, Stone & Kopec, Springfield, IL, for Defendant–Appellant.Before BAUER, WOOD and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.BAUER, Circuit Judge.

A jury convicted defendant-appellant Jeffrey Dean Chambers of attempting to entice a minor under the age of eighteen to engage in sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) and of knowingly transporting child pornography in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1). The district court sentenced Chambers to 240 months' imprisonment. Chambers challenges the sufficiency of the evidence used to prove the attempted enticement charge and the admission of certain evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). For the following reasons, we affirm Chambers' convictions.

I. BACKGROUND

In March 2006, Chambers entered an American Online (“AOL”) chat room entitled “I Love Much Older Men,” and using the screen name “jefdean60,” initiated contact with the screen name “Riverprincess.” The online profile for “Riverprincess” revealed that the user was a 14–year–old girl named Kendal; in actuality the girl was an undercover police detective named Carrie Smithberger. Over a span of fourteen months, Chambers contacted Kendal hundreds of times, engaging in sexually explicit online chats, e-mails, text messages, and telephone conversations.

While partaking in the online relationship with Kendal, Chambers continued to initiate contact with other young users of the “I Love Much Older Men” chat room. On May 21, 2006, Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Jonathon Cook, under the guise of a 13–year–old girl named Jen with the screen name “Jensluv2cheer,” entered into the same AOL chat room, and Chambers initiated a conversation. During this single conversation, Chambers inquired about Jen's appearance and sexual development, spoke in sexually suggestive language, sent Jen a sexually explicit image of what he claimed was himself, and told Jen he was masturbating and asked her to do the same “to make the experience better for him.”

Approximately one year later in March 2007, Chambers, again using the screen name jefdean60, initiated contact with “Kaitlynm13” in the AOL chat room “I Love Much Older Men.” The user of this screen name was actually Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Wade Luders, posing as a 13–year–old female named Kaitlyn. During the chat with Kaitlyn, Chambers used sexually explicit language and e-mailed Kaitlyn pornographic pictures of both adults and children as well as videos of minors being sexually abused and engaging in sexual acts. Chambers then asked Kaitlyn if she would perform sexual acts and send him pictures.

On June 13, 2007, federal agents obtained a search warrant to search Chambers' residence and seized Chambers' computer and other evidence linking Chambers to Kendal. During the execution of the search warrant, Chambers consented to an interview by an agent at his home. Chambers admitted that he frequented AOL chat rooms and was interested in chatting with young females. He admitted that he had engaged in sexual conversations with “Riverprincess” and other minors, and that he sent her and other minors pornographic images. He said that he discussed meeting the minors to have sex but never actually intended to do so.

Chambers was charged with two counts of knowingly transporting child pornography in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1) for sending child pornography to Detective Smithberger, under the alias Kendal, and to Special Agent Luders, under the alias Kaitlyn.

When plea negotiations failed to resolve the issues, the government filed a superceding indictment adding a count charging enticement of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) for Chambers' contact with Detective Smithberger, under the alias Kendal.

Chambers was tried by a jury. The district court, over Chambers' objections, admitted several pieces of evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), each of which was offered primarily to prove “grooming,” motive, and intent. First, the court allowed into evidence Chambers' Internet chat and e-mails with Special Agent Luders, under the alias Kaitlyn. Specifically, the government introduced evidence that Chambers sent pornography to Kaitlyn and that he chatted with Kaitlyn about graphic sexual topics and a previous sexual encounter with his ex-girlfriend's 14–year–old daughter. Second, the court admitted into evidence Chambers' Internet chat with Special Agent Cook, under the alias Jen. The government offered a one-and-a-half-hour-long chat log between Chambers and Jen which was filled with sexually graphic language. In that conversation, Chambers described how he had sexual intercourse with the 14–year–old daughter of an ex-girlfriend and inquired into having sexual intercourse with Jen. Finally, the court admitted twenty-two child pornography images found on Chambers' computer, most of which were not related to the charges. The images were entered by the government to establish Chambers' ability to transfer pornographic images to the undercover agents, as well as to demonstrate Chambers' sexual feelings toward children.

A jury found Chambers guilty on all three counts. Chambers now appeals his convictions.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Evidence of Attempted Enticement of a Minor

Chambers argues that the government produced insufficient evidence to prove the attempted enticement charge. We give a jury verdict great deference and will uphold the verdict if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Hicks, 368 F.3d 801, 804–05 (7th Cir.2004).

Chambers filed a Rule 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal and a Rule 33 motion for a new trial pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which were both denied by the court. We review a Rule 29 motion de novo, accepting the factual findings in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Jones, 222 F.3d 349, 351 (7th Cir.2000). When evaluating a Rule 33 motion for a new trial, our task is to determine whether the verdict is so contrary to the weight of evidence that a new trial is required in the interests of justice. United States v. Washington, 184 F.3d 653, 657 (7th Cir.1999).

The jury convicted Chambers under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), which makes it a crime to use interstate commerce to attempt or to knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce any individual under the age of eighteen to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any individual can be charged with a criminal offense. 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (2006). To prove the attempt of this crime, the prosecution must show that Chambers intended to complete the crime and had taken a “substantial step” toward its completion. United States v. Gladish, 536 F.3d 646, 648 (7th Cir.2008). The term “substantial step” can be an elusive concept, but has been described as more than mere preparation, but less than the last act necessary before actual commission of the crime. United States v. Rovetuso, 768 F.2d 809, 821 (7th Cir.1985). A substantial step occurs when a person's actions make it reasonably clear that had he not been interrupted or made a mistake, he would have completed the crime. Gladish, 536 F.3d at 648.

Chambers argues that he neither intended to meet Kendal nor took a substantial step toward meeting Kendal. Chambers' argument that evidence of intent is lacking is unconvincing. He argues that his failure to meet Kendal after fourteen months of chatting online indicates that there was no intent to actually meet her, and that no reasonable jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions were more than just “a bunch of talk.” Chambers also emphasizes the testimony of FBI Agent Christopher Lamb—one of the agents who interviewed Chambers upon his arrest—who testified that Chambers said he never intended to meet any minors in person. Nevertheless, the jury was entitled to conclude from the evidence that Chambers' intent was to meet Kendal for sex and not just talk about it. The jury did not have to believe Chambers when he said he had no intention to meet Kendal and the jury was instructed as much. A reasonable jury could have found intent based on the evidence presented by the government.

Chambers next argues that because he did not travel to meet Kendal, there was no substantial step. While it is true that Chambers never traveled to meet Kendal, “travel is not a sine qua non of finding a substantial step.” United States v. Zawada, 552 F.3d 531, 535 (7th Cir.2008) (conviction for enticement upheld when the defendant and purported minor never met, but the two had a concrete conversation about where and when they would meet and the defendant ensured the purported minor was taking birth control); Gladish, 536 F.3d at 649 (citing Doe v. Smith, 470 F.3d 331, 345 n. 23 (7th Cir.2006)). The Third, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have all found that “when a defendant initiates conversation with a minor, describes the sexual acts that he would like to perform on the minor, and proposes a rendezvous to perform those acts, he has crossed the line toward persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing a minor to engage in unlawful sexual activity.” United States v. Goetzke, 494 F.3d 1231, 1237 (9th Cir.2007). ¹

We recognize that child sexual abuse can be accomplished by several means and is often carried out through a period of grooming. United States v. Berg, 640 F.3d 239, 252 (7th Cir.2011) (“[Section 2422(b) ]...