Today there were motions hearings set in U.S. v. Weiner, the Mann Act prosecution of Dr. Roger Weiner for agreeing to meet with some online “sugar babies” who turned out to be F.B.I. agents pretending to be sugar babies. When the hearing commenced, Judge Biggers requested that the hearing begin with the jurisdictional motion. The Mann Act requires interstate transportation for a prosecution; the defense argued that no one crossed a state line.
Federal jurisdiction with the Mann Act requires the crossing of a state line, in the way wire fraud requires the use of telephone systems or the like. With an attempt to cross state lines– starting to do that but staying within the state– there is no federal-jurisdiction-creating act. The Government argued that, by attempting to get the woman to cross state lines, Dr. Weiner had made substantial efforts toward completing the crime, which is what is required to prosecute an attempt charge. But without the actual crossing of a state line, the federal courts have no jurisdiction.
Hearing argument, Judge Biggers granted the motion and dismissed the prosecution. It’s over, just like that.
I posted a while ago about a hearing where Judge Biggers asked pointed, dubious questions about the case. The defense motion to dismiss for lack of federal jurisdiction was, oddly enough filed under seal and seems not visible; the government response is here, and the defense reply is here.
Judge Biggers had earlier denied the governments effort to disqualify defense counsel. Here’s that order order, and here’s my earlier post about the motion and the response.
The feds can appeal, right? (Leaving aside the prudence vel non of their doing so.)
All I can say is Hooray it’s over. The government has spent enough of the taxpayers money .We have more pressing issues to deal with.
Keep in mind that the case was dismissed on a technicality….not because Weiner was found not guilty!!
The link for the Order denying the Motion to Disqualify appears to go to an Order granting access to letters in the Delaughter case.
It’s fixed now, I think, zachdog31
Justice: An element of the government’s case is that the government must prove interstate movement. It’s the essence of the crime, not a technicality.
Want to see: Jurisdiction is never a “technicality.” Jurisdiction always is an essential, core element that must be proven in every case … everything from a parking ticket in JP court to a capital murder trial to an appeal to the Supreme Court, and everything in between.
can weiner litigate against the fbi and feds for misconduct?
Just being named Dr. Weiner and getting prosecuted for violating (or attempted violation of) the Mann Act should be punishment enough. Too bad he wasn’t a urologist.
/I apologize if this joke already made
//seems a little too obvious, considering the background of many readers of this site
ampal @ 6:17 pm
If there’s a legitimate basis to do so, he could bring a claim under Bivens.
The point is that Weiner was not cleared of the charge at hand!
Crispin: What would constitute a “legitimate basis” and explain Bivens, please?
Note to self: stick to in-state hookers.
Want to: What charge? There is no charge. It went away. The government couldn’t establish its claims. The gov’t lost. The doctor won. It’s over.
There was even less to this case than met the eye. The original criminal complaint charged a violation of 18 USC 2422(a), which provides:
The reports that NMC has previously posted make it clear that the FBI agents were the ones suggesting travel in interstate commerce, not Dr. Weiner. While the dismissal was for lack of jurisdiction, it would have been equally appropriate to dismiss for failure to state a prima facie case. Dr. Weiner committed no crime.
Want to see justice @ 7:19 pm
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), implied a cause of action for a deprivation of constitutional rights by federal agents.
The legitimate basis would depend on the particular facts of this case. Not knowing, I can’t say offhand.
what a limp, uhhh, lame, yes lame – that’s it, effort at prosecution of a non-case by the federal sex police.
Sugar daddies rock!
Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense
Why can’t the FBI agents be charged under this statute? Didn’t they entice Weiner? Or didn’t they conspire to violate the statute?
I don’t think the FBI agents intended to entice Dr. Weiner to cross a state line, nor did they intend to engage in any sexual activity if he did. Both are elements of the offense. (Although it’s clear they intended to screw Dr. Weiner, sex was not on the agenda.)
I’m sure you’re right, but let me play with it some more:
(1) “travel in interstate commerce” — what does that mean? Does the expansion of the Commerce Clause apply to criminal statutes? Getting in my car and driving intrastate on an interstate highway might qualify.
(2) The statute as worded doesn’t require the enticer to have sexual activity with the enticee.
Anderson, your question about the expansion of the commerce clause was adressed by the recent U.S. Supreme Court case of Lopez, which held that a law preventing one from carrying a gun within 1000 feet of a school was too tenuous to cause the commerce clause to apply. Driving intrastate on a interstate would appear not appear to make the commerce clause apply on those fact. I chose not to quote the Lopez case to Judge Biggers. You are correct also that the Mann Act statute as written does not require actual sexual activity, a point which I conceded to Judge Biggers, but my point that someone had to cross a state line to violate the act was well taken.
I also want to address the comment that this was a “technicality.” On the contrary, the lack of jurisdiction means that no Federal crime was ever committed. If a Federal crime had been committed, the Court would have had jurisdiction. No jurisdiction = no Federal Crime = exoneration on the Federal crime counts. Although I presented it from a jurisdictional point of view argument, in essence it leads to the conclusion that no Federal crime was ever committed.