From:
To:
Subject: RE: 2422(b) based upon telephone contact
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:49:03 +0000
Importance: Normal
-- I read that case. Fascinating stuff. Can I ask why you chose 2425 instead of 2422(b) [using a facility
of interstate commerce to induce a minor to engage in prostitution]?
And any chance you could send me a copy of the indictment?
Thank you so much.
From:
Se
To
Subject: RE: 2422(b) based upon telephone contact
-- I did a 2425 prosecution (USA I Giordano,442 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2006)), in which the 2d Cir. held that a
cellular was a facility of interstate commerce, even when the offending calls were intrastate. Good
luck.
-
( )1111 . -
From:
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:07 AM
To: USAEO-PSC-Coordinators
Subject: 2422(b) based upon telephone contact
Hi everyone -- Sony to trouble you, but I have a defense attorney who is claiming that NO ONE has ever been
prosecuted anywhere in the United States for a violation of 2422(b) based exclusively on the use of a telephone
as the facility of interstate commerce. I know that is false because I have prosecuted two of these, but it would be
really helpful if you could provide me with examples of other cases throughout the country.
Thank you so much.
EFTA00214686