## Facts

- Kent Frank, a United States citizen, traveled to Cambodia and stayed at a hotel where Cambodian police received a tip about suspicious activity involving minors.
- Cambodian officers observed several girls leaving Frank’s hotel and detained them for questioning; based on their appearance and other indicators, police suspected they were minors.
- Cambodian police searched Frank’s hotel room, seized items, and brought Frank to the police station on suspicion of violating Cambodian law.
- The next day, with an interpreter present, Cambodian police interviewed Frank; authorities discovered sexually explicit images, and Frank admitted paying minor girls to engage in sexual acts and to pose for sexually explicit photographs.
- The minors’ ages were approximately 11 to 17.
- In federal court in the Southern District of Florida, a jury convicted Frank of: (1) traveling with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, (2) traveling and engaging in illicit sexual conduct, and (3) purchasing minors to produce sexually explicit visual depictions, under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423(b), 2423(c), and 2251A(b)(2)(A).
- The district court imposed, among other terms, concurrent 360-month sentences on certain counts.

## Issues

1. Whether un-Mirandized statements obtained by Cambodian officials should be suppressed because of U.S. involvement or due process concerns.
2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 2251A applies extraterritorially to conduct by a U.S. citizen in Cambodia.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove a “purchase” under § 2251A(b) and “illicit sexual conduct” under § 2423(c).
4. Whether the district court misstated the law in jury instructions defining “purchase” and “sexual act.”
5. Whether prosecutorial remarks in opening and closing argument warranted reversal.
6. Whether imposing concurrent 360-month terms on certain counts was plain error.
7. Whether challenges to supplemental jury instructions were barred by invited error and consistent with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.
8. Whether Frank’s confession was properly admitted as voluntary and not subject to Miranda exclusion.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Frank’s convictions and sentences.
- The court upheld denial of suppression of Frank’s statements to Cambodian police because Miranda generally does not apply to foreign interrogations absent a joint venture or agency relationship with U.S. officials, and the conduct did not violate due process.
- The court held § 2251A applied extraterritorially to Frank’s conduct abroad.
- The court found sufficient evidence that Frank paid minors in exchange for sexual activity and sexually explicit photographs, supporting findings of “purchase” and “illicit sexual conduct.”
- The court rejected challenges to jury instructions, concluding the instructions accurately stated the law and did not mislead the jury.
- The court found no reversible prosecutorial misconduct given the overall context, jury instructions, and strength of the evidence.
- Under plain-error review, the court upheld the concurrent 360-month sentences.
- The court applied invited-error principles to bar appellate complaints about supplemental instructions requested or agreed to by the defense.
- The court upheld admission of Frank’s confession as voluntary and not excludable solely for lack of Miranda warnings by foreign officials.

## Legal Principles

- Miranda warnings generally do not govern custodial questioning conducted by foreign officials abroad unless U.S. law enforcement agents substantially participate such that the foreign officials act as U.S. agents or in a joint venture.
- Statements obtained by foreign officials may still be excluded if the circumstances are so coercive as to violate due process (conduct that “shocks the judicial conscience”).
- Congress may apply federal child-exploitation statutes extraterritorially when statutory text, structure, and purpose show intent to reach U.S. citizens’ sexual exploitation of children abroad.
- “Purchase” under 18 U.S.C. § 2251A(b) can be satisfied by evidence of quid pro quo payments to minors for participation in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions.
- A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c) is supported by proof that a defendant traveled in foreign commerce and engaged in commercially based sexual conduct with a minor.
- A defendant who requests or affirmatively agrees to a jury instruction generally cannot complain on appeal about the resulting instruction (invited error).
- Sentencing claims raised without preservation are reviewed for plain error; relief requires a clear or obvious error affecting substantial rights.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit upheld federal convictions and lengthy concurrent sentences for a U.S. citizen’s sexual exploitation of minors in Cambodia, ruling that foreign-obtained statements and a confession were admissible, the relevant child-exploitation statute applied extraterritorially, the evidence and jury instructions were sufficient, and remaining trial and sentencing challenges did not warrant reversal.


United States v. Frank, 599 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2010)