Mistake-Of-Age Defense
Federal child exploitation cases get no mistake-of-age defense
The First Circuit said prosecutors under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) do not have to prove the defendant knew the victim was a minor. The panel relied on its prior ruling in United States v. Henry and left the focus on the conduct itself.
The First Circuit said defendants charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) cannot avoid liability by claiming they thought the victim was an adult. The ruling keeps the statute focused on the sexual conduct, not on a defendant’s claimed belief about age.
- No mistake-of-age defense exists under § 2251(a) in the First Circuit.
- Prosecutors do not have to prove the defendant knew the person was a minor.
- The court relied on its 2016 Henry decision and the statute’s text.
- The ruling strengthens future federal child-exploitation prosecutions.
- In the federal First Circuit, defendants charged under 18 U.S.C
In the federal First Circuit, defendants charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) cannot avoid liability by saying they thought the victim was an adult. The court also said prosecutors do not have to prove the defendant knew the person engaging in sexually explicit conduct was a minor.
That rule matters because it keeps the statute aimed at the act itself, not at a defendant’s claimed guess about age. For people prosecuted under the law, the belief they were dealing with an adult is not a get-out-of-liability card.
A defense the court already closed
The panel said it had already rejected a mistake-of-age defense in United States v. Henry in 2016, and it treated that precedent as controlling here. Taken together, the statute’s text, prior precedent and persuasive precedent led the court to reiterate the same bottom line: § 2251(a) contains no mistake-of-age defense.
This was less a pivot than a confirmation. The court made clear that a defendant’s knowledge goes to the conduct criminalized by the statute, not to a separate age element the law does not require.
What this leaves for future cases
The appeal involved Rayevon Deschambault’s convictions for sexual exploitation of a minor. But the ruling reaches beyond one defendant, because it gives federal prosecutors a cleaner path in future cases and removes one line of argument defense lawyers had hoped to press.
For minors, the decision keeps the federal child-exploitation statute broad. For defendants, it means the fight will not turn on a claim that they misread age, but on whether the government can prove the prohibited sexual conduct itself.