United States v. Skinner

Decision Date10 March 2021
Docket NumberCriminal No. 3:19cr19
Citation536 F.Supp.3d 23
Parties UNITED STATES of America v. Troy George SKINNER, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia

Brian R. Hood, US Attorney, Katherine Lee Martin, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Richmond, VA, for United States of America.

Laura Jill Koenig, Public Defender, Robert James Wagner, Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Richmond, VA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION II

The Constitutional Motions Decision

M. Hannah Lauck, United States District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on six motions brought by Defendant Troy George Skinner. Skinner, a New Zealand citizen, faces kidnapping and production of child pornography charges in the United States.

This is the second of three opinions released today. The Court has issued its opinion on Skinner's Motion to Suppress, ("Memorandum Opinion I" or the "Suppression Decision").1 The third opinion addressing two motions, the Motion to Sever and the Motion for a Jury Questionnaire, ("Memorandum Opinion III" or the "Severance Decision"), will follow.

This opinion addresses Skinner's three Motions to Dismiss (collectively, the Constitutional Motions to Dismiss"):

(1) Defendant Troy George Skinner's Motion to Dismiss Counts One through Nine of the Superseding Indictment for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Violation of Due Process (the "Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction"), (ECF No. 69);
(2) Skinner's Motion to Dismiss Counts One through Nine of the Superseding Indictment on First Amendment Grounds (the "First Amendment Motion to Dismiss"), (ECF No. 71); and,
(3) Skinner's Motion to Dismiss Counts One through Nine of the Superseding Indictment on Fifth Amendment Due Process Grounds (the "Fifth Amendment Motion to Dismiss"), (ECF No. 72).

In the Motions to Dismiss, Skinner seeks the dismissal of Counts One through Nine of the Superseding Indictment charging him with the production of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).2 The United States responded to the three Motions to Dismiss, (ECF Nos. 79, 83, 84), and Skinner replied, (ECF Nos. 88, 90, 91). After two evidentiary hearings and additional briefing, these matters are ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the Motions to Dismiss.

I. Procedural History and Findings of Fact

The Court adopts and incorporates the procedural history and factual findings in both the Suppression Decision and the Severance Decision. Its Speedy Trial findings in the Suppression Decision pertain to all three opinions as well. This Memorandum Opinion will add factual findings and procedural events pertinent to the constitutional motions analyzed here.

A. Procedural History

On September 18, 2019, a federal grand jury returned an eleven-count superseding indictment (the "Superseding Indictment") against Skinner. (ECF No. 58.) The Superseding Indictment charged Skinner with nine counts relating to the production of child pornography, (Counts 1–9, the "Child Pornography Charges"), and two counts of attempted kidnapping, (Counts 10–11, the "Kidnapping Charges). In January 2020, Skinner filed six pretrial motions, including the three Motions to Dismiss at issue. (ECF Nos. 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76.)

1. The Motions to Dismiss

Skinner first moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, for violation of due process under the Fifth Amendment3 because his conduct lacked a sufficient nexus to the United States. (ECF No. 69.) Second, Skinner moves to dismiss under the Fifth Amendment, claiming in an as-applied challenge that the absence of a knowledge requirement of the minor's underage status or a reasonable mistake of age defense in § 2251(a) renders his prosecution unconstitutional, or that the penalties he faces renders the prosecution fundamentally unfair. (ECF No. 72.) Third, Skinner moves to dismiss under the First Amendment,4 contending in an as-applied challenge that subjecting him to liability for his online sexual encounters with V1 would chill protected speech. (ECF No. 71.)

2. The Evidentiary Hearings

As noted, Skinner also filed a Motion to Suppress, (ECF No. 70), a Motion to Sever, (ECF No. 73), and a Motion for Jury Questionnaire, (ECF No. 76), in January 2020.

The Court held two evidentiary hearings on all pending motions. On February 13, 2020, the Court held a hearing addressing the Fourth Amendment challenge in the Motion to Suppress. Briefing followed, as did a delay in the second hearing necessitated by restrictions flowing from the COVID-19 pandemic. (See ECF Nos. 101–03, 106; Gen. Order 2020-07 (Case No. 2:20mc7), (ECF No. 7.)) During the August 6, 2020 hearing, the Parties placed evidence on the record, including that produced through the warrants. That additional evidence will be referenced below. The Court heard argument addressing all matters the Parties chose to address orally.

Having denied the Motion to Suppress in a separate Memorandum Opinion, the Court turns now to the relevant facts underlying the Motions to Dismiss.

B. Findings of Fact as to the Constitutional Motions to Dismiss 5

The Child Pornography Charges arise out of an online sexual relationship between Skinner, a resident and citizen of New Zealand, and a minor residing in Goochland, Virginia (hereafter, "V1"). In December 2017, Skinner met V1 through an online gaming site called Steam. Skinner and V1 began to exchange messages on Steam before transitioning, at Skinner's suggestion, to a different online-gaming platform called Discord. These exchanges continued through June of 2018.

Over the course of their interactions, Skinner and V1 had a number of conversations discussing V1's age. Some referenced the fact that V1 [redacted]6

[redacted]

On January 7, 2018, Skinner told V1 that he wanted to be her boyfriend. [redacted]

(U.S. Ex. 23, ECF No. 114.)

Also, on January 7, 2018, Skinner and V1 discussed the age of consent in the United States (18) versus New Zealand (16).

[redacted]

On January 9, 2017, Skinner and V1 discussed [redacted]

On February 3, 2017—nearly one month later—Skinner and V1 again discussed V1's youthful appearance. [redacted]

While initially an online friendship,7 [redacted]8 [redacted]9 (Aug. 6, 2020 Hr'g Tr. 27.) Counsel for Skinner explained during the hearing that two cursors appear on the video, "which indicates that [Skinner and V1] are screen sharing" as V1 can be heard responding to what the video suggests is Skinner reading the story to her.10 (Id. ) VI and Skinner discuss this in January:

[redacted]11

On January 10, 2018, Skinner recorded a video during which he repeatedly encouraged [redacted]12 The video shows that the first portion of that statute was briefly displayed on the screen:

Any person 18 years of age or older who ... maintains a custodial or supervisory relationship over a child under the age of 18 and is not legally married to such child and such child is not emancipated who, with lascivious intent, knowingly and intentionally (i) propose that any such ....

New Zealand law enforcement discovered the January 26, 2018 Video saved on Skinner's computer.

Several months later, on June 4, 2018, Skinner and V1 [redacted]

Around early June 2018, [redacted] After V1 ended the relationship, Skinner traveled from his home in New Zealand to Richmond, Virginia. On June 21, 2018, Skinner arrived in Richmond and spent the night at a hostel. The next day, on June 22, 2018, Skinner traveled to the Wal-Mart Supercenter located at 11400 West Broad Street Road, Glen Allen, Virginia. While there, Skinner made two separate purchases: one for pepper spray, and the second for a clip knife and duct tape.

Later that afternoon, Skinner traveled to V1's family home in Goochland, Virginia. V1 had previously given Skinner her home address during one of their online chat sessions. Skinner attempted to gain access to the home through a sliding glass door. V1's mother refused Skinner entry to the house, at which point Skinner attempted to break the glass door. Alarmed, V1, together with her mother and sister, retreated upstairs where V1's mother retrieved a handgun. At this point, Skinner proceeded to a different entrance, broke a glass panel, and attempted to manipulate the doorknob through the broken panel to enter the home. After issuing several verbal warnings, V1's mother shot the handgun twice to prevent Skinner from forcing entry into the home. Shortly thereafter, law enforcement arrived at V1's home and found Skinner lying in a neighbor's yard. Law enforcement found Skinner with, among other things, two cell phones, duct tape, pepper spray, and a knife in an open, extended position.

The Court turns now to the three pending Motions to Dismiss, concluding, alongside most circuit courts, that Skinner prevails on none of them.

II. Analysis: The Court Will Deny the Three Motions to Dismiss

Skinner brings three motions to dismiss the Superseding Indictment, arguing that the United States' prosecution of him for the nine counts of production of child pornography under § 2251(a) violates the Constitution. First, Skinner moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, for violation of due process under the Fifth Amendment because his conduct lacked a sufficient nexus to the United States. (ECF No. 69.) Second, Skinner moves to dismiss under the Fifth Amendment, claiming in an as-applied challenge that the absence of a knowledge requirement of the minor's underage status or a reasonable mistake of age defense in § 2251(a) renders his prosecution unconstitutional, or because the penalties he faces render the prosecution fundamentally unfair. (ECF No. 72.) Third, Skinner moves to dismiss under the First Amendment, contending in an as-applied challenge that subjecting him to liability for his online sexual encounters with V1 would chill protected speech. (ECF No. 71.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny each ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • United States v. Skinner
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • June 8, 2023
    ...least entitled to a reasonable-mistake-of-age defense. The district court denied Skinner's motions to dismiss. See United States v. Skinner, 536 F. Supp. 3d 23 (E.D. Va. 2021). It first held that § 2251(a) applies to extraterritorial conduct and, even if it did not, that Skinner's case repr......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT