Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in affirming a jury instruction that allowed conviction for sex trafficking under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1) without proof the defendant knew his own actions would cause the victim to engage in a commercial sex act

Questions Presented for Review 1. The federal sex trafficking statute requires that the government prove the defendant knew his/her own actions would cause the victim to engage in a commercial sex act. 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1). Here, however, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a jury instruction that allowed conviction if the government proved only that the defendant knew “anyone would cause” the victim to engage in a commercial sex act. The Ninth Circuit’s decision on this element conflicts with its own precedent and model instruction and creates a split with other circuit precedent and pattern instructions for sex trafficking. Should this Court grant review to ensure uniformity under § 1591(a)(1), and avoid erosion of the Fifth Amendment’s grand jury and due process protections? 2. In accordance with Congressional intent to impose harsher penalties on those who seek to exploit children specifically through use of a computer, the Sentencing Guidelines allow for an enhancement when the defendant or his/her agent uses a computer to solicit prohibited sexual conduct with a minor. U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(3). Here, the Ninth Circuit affirmed application of this enhancement when Pruitt neither used nor directed another to use a computer for solicitation. In affirming, the Ninth Circuit split with other circuits that hold the Guideline requires computer use by the defendant or his agent, not a third party. Should this Court grant review to resolve the circuit split over whether courts may apply the computer use enhancement to a defendant solely based on the conduct of another? 3. After Pruitt was charged, convicted, and sentenced of prohibited person in possession of a firearm, this Court overturned near-unanimous circuit authority by holding the government must prove the defendant knew at the time of alleged possession that he/she belonged to the category of persons barred from possessing a firearm. Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). This Court emphasized that this mens rea marked the distinction between innocent and criminal conduct. Yet Pruitt’s indictment failed to charge this critical mens rea that is necessary to establish a federal crime. Should this Court grant review to resolve the circuit split over whether an indictment “defect,” such as omission of the element necessary to render conduct criminal, can ever strip federal courts of jurisdiction? ii