## Facts

- IMM, a 12-year-old juvenile, was accused of sexually abusing his 6-year-old cousin (MM) on an Indian reservation in Arizona.
- MM’s grandfather found MM outside with her pants down; MM said the boys told her to remove her clothes, while the boys remained clothed.
- After the grandfather yelled, MM began crying; family members’ accounts later conflicted about what happened next and how the children were questioned.
- Federal authorities proceeded against IMM under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (FJDA), which required a jurisdictional certification under 18 U.S.C. § 5032.
- At the bench trial, the government presented, among other evidence, testimony from MM’s younger brother (about seven at trial) and an inculpatory statement IMM made during a custodial interrogation.
- The district court adjudicated IMM delinquent for sexual abuse under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2246.
- IMM appealed, challenging federal jurisdiction, the child witness’s competency, evidentiary sufficiency, and admission of his custodial statement under Miranda.

## Issues

1. Whether the government’s FJDA certification under 18 U.S.C. § 5032 was legally sufficient to confer federal jurisdiction.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by finding the seven-year-old witness competent and admitting his testimony.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove sexual abuse as defined by 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2246.
4. Whether IMM’s custodial statement was admitted in violation of Miranda and the Fifth Amendment, and if so, whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held the § 5032 certification was sufficient and federal jurisdiction was proper.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the seven-year-old witness competent and admitting his testimony.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for a rational factfinder to find the required sexual-abuse element of penetration “however slight” under § 2246(2)(A).
- The court held IMM’s custodial inculpatory statement was obtained and admitted in violation of Miranda because the government did not show a valid waiver given IMM’s age and the interrogation circumstances.
- The court concluded the Miranda error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and reversed and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- A federal juvenile prosecution requires a § 5032 certification; if the certification satisfies statutory requirements, it supports subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Child-witness competency turns on the ability to understand and commit to telling the truth; limited recall and possible suggestibility generally affect weight and credibility, not admissibility.
- Evidence is sufficient if, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, a rational factfinder could find the statutory elements beyond a reasonable doubt, including “penetration, however slight” for aggravated sexual abuse under § 2246(2)(A).
- In a custodial interrogation, the government bears the burden to prove a Miranda waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; a juvenile’s age and interrogation conditions are central to that inquiry.
- Admission of a statement obtained in violation of Miranda requires reversal unless the government proves the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed federal jurisdiction under the FJDA, the competency ruling for a seven-year-old witness, and the legal sufficiency of the trial evidence, but reversed the delinquency adjudication because IMM’s custodial statement was admitted without a valid Miranda waiver and the error was not harmless.


United States v. IMM, 747 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2014)