United States v. Jungers and Bonestroo
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
702 F.3d 1066 (2013)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Daron Jungers and Ronald Bonestroo (defendants) separately responded to online advertisements posted by undercover federal agents offering sexual encounters with children at a house in South Dakota. Jungers requested oral sex from an 11-year-old girl, and Bonestroo requested penetrative sex with twin 14-year-old girls. After agreeing on price, Jungers and Bonestroo separately travelled to South Dakota from out-of-state. Federal agents arrested Jungers and Bonestroo upon arrival. The federal government (plaintiff) charged Jungers and Bonestroo with attempted commercial child sex trafficking in violation of Section 1591 of the Trafficking Victim Protection Act (TVPA). Both Jungers and Bonestroo challenged, arguing that Section 1591 was inapplicable because it only applied to commercial child sex traffickers, not purchasers. Both Jungers and Bonestroo were found guilty after a jury trial; however, both filed for judgments of acquittal, and both were granted. The district court held that acquittal was appropriate because Section 1591 applied only to child sex traffickers and could not be expanded to punish individuals like Jungers and Bonestroo who merely purchased the services offered by the traffickers. The government appealed, arguing that Section 1591 applied to both suppliers and purchasers of commercial child sex acts.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Riley, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.