ILNews

Men took substantial steps to commit crime

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the same issue in two separate Indiana cases of men chatting on the Internet with people they believed to be teen girls: whether there was evidence the men had taken "substantial steps" toward committing the crimes of enticing a minor to engage in criminal sexual activity.

Donald Zawada and Derek Davey appealed their convictions of violating 18 U.S.C. Section 2422(b) - knowingly persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing a person under the age of 18 to engage in criminal sexual activity. In both cases, the men had been conversing online with undercover police whom they believed were underage girls. Both men had sexual conversations with the "girls" and discussed meeting; Davey actually made the drive to where he believed the girl lived.

The federal appellate court examined its recent decision in United States v. Gladish, 536 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2008), to determine the men had taken substantial steps toward committing the crimes. Gladish held that mere talk in an Internet chat room couldn't support a conviction under Section 2422(b), but more concrete steps are necessary, such as arranging a meeting, buying gifts, or "grooming" someone for a sexual relationship.

In United States v. Donald Zawada, No. 08-1012, Zawada had a conversation about making a date to meet with who he thought was an underage girl and discussed a specific time and day, but the meeting never happened. He also had several conversations with the "girl," which could have been considered grooming her for a sexualized relationship, wrote Judge Diane Wood.

Zawada claimed he wasn't the person associated with the screen names linked to the explicit conversations, but the jury found he had committed a substantial step toward completing the offense and that he was the one chatting with the alleged girl.

Davey's case is similar to Zawada's except that Davey originally pleaded guilty to the charges but later tried to withdraw his appeal. In United States v. Derek S. Davey, No. 07-3533, Davey was arrested in Northern Indiana after he had driven to a restaurant to call the "girl" he had been speaking to about making arrangements to sneak into her house. Before sentencing, Davey retained a new attorney and tried to have his plea thrown out; the District Court denied his motion to withdraw.

On appeal, he argued that he pleaded guilty to something that isn't an offense under Section 2422(b), and that is enough to invalidate his plea, wrote Judge Wood. The 7th Circuit found Davey's admissions in his plea agreement go "a long way" toward meeting the substantial step criteria established in Gladish - he made arrangements to meet with the "girl" he was chatting with and he drove to meet her at a pre-arranged spot.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT