Was the error in the jury instruction harmless?

Questions Presented for Review 1. The Ninth Circuit held that for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c) (aggravated sexual abuse), the government must prove, and the jury must be instructed, that there was a sex act with a specific victim under the age of 12. In the District Court, the petitioner had requested an instruction for the § 2241(c) count (count 8), identifying a specific victim under twelve. His request was denied. The Ninth Circuit found that to be error, but harmless. The Ninth Circuit held the error harmless because the jury found, in a different count (count 3), that the petitioner was guilty of illicit sexual conduct with a specific victim (LS). In that count, the government proved LS was "under eighteen." The Ninth Circuit observed that testimony and photographs in evidence established that LS was also under twelve. Thus, it concluded, the jury's finding in count 3, and other evidence about LS, were sufficient to sustain the conviction in count 8, even though the District Court left out an element of the crime in the instruction for count 8. Because of the ruling on the jury instruction, the defendant could not contest the age of the alleged victims, which removed an available defense. Was the error -permitting a jury instruction that was missing an element, and thus determined what evidence was admissible -harmless? 2. Did the petitioner's removal from Cambodia, via South Korea, violate the "Rule of Specialty"? Was the petitioner unfairly deprived of his ability to examine i key government witnesses, and to obtain key documents, to be able to answer this question? 3. Was the prosecution under the then-current version of 18 U.S.C. § 2423 (traveling in foreign commerce and engaging in illicit sexual conduct with minors) impermissible, because the petitioner was a resident of Cambodia, that is, he was not "traveling"? 4. During voir dire, a prospective juror, who worked professionally with sex abusers, blurted out that the petitioner smiled like a sex abuser. That juror was excused for cause, but five prospective jurors who heard the remark ultimately sat on the jury. Was the jury impermissibly tainted by that? ii