## Facts

- Federal and state officers conducted an undercover online sting in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, targeting individuals seeking sex with minors for money.
- Daron Lee Jungers communicated with an undercover officer and sought an eleven-year-old girl to perform oral sex for payment; he traveled from Iowa to South Dakota to complete the transaction.
- Ronald Bonestroo communicated with an undercover officer and agreed to pay $200 for sex with what he believed were fourteen-year-old twin girls; he traveled to the meeting location to complete the transaction.
- Both defendants were arrested upon arrival and charged with attempted sex trafficking of a minor under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 and 1594(a).
- Separate juries convicted each defendant; neither defendant presented evidence and instead argued § 1591 targets suppliers, not buyers.
- The district court in each case granted a post-verdict Rule 29 judgment of acquittal, holding § 1591 was intended to punish sellers/traffickers rather than purchasers and that the evidence was insufficient.
- The United States appealed both acquittals; the Eighth Circuit consolidated the appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) applies to purchasers who “obtain,” or attempt to obtain, a minor for a commercial sex act, or only to suppliers/traffickers.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support attempted violations of § 1591 under 18 U.S.C. § 1594(a) where defendants negotiated for and traveled to purchase sex acts from purported minors.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit reversed the Rule 29 judgments of acquittal.
- The court held § 1591’s terms apply to purchasers as well as suppliers, and the statute contains no implied “customer exception.”
- The court remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury guilty verdicts and to proceed with sentencing.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory interpretation begins with the text; broad terms such as “whoever” indicate wide coverage unless the statute expressly limits liability.
- The verb “obtains” in § 1591(a) can include a buyer who seeks to acquire sexual access to a minor through a commercial sex transaction.
- Courts may not insert categorical exceptions (such as a purchaser-only exclusion) that are not supported by statutory text.
- Overlap with other federal criminal statutes does not, by itself, justify narrowing otherwise clear statutory language.
- Evidence that a defendant negotiated for underage sex acts, agreed to pay, and traveled to complete the transaction can support an attempt conviction under § 1594(a) predicated on § 1591(a).

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit held that § 1591 covers purchasers who obtain or attempt to obtain minors for commercial sex acts, reversed the district courts’ post-verdict acquittals, and ordered reinstatement of the jury verdicts with remand for sentencing.


United States v. Jungers, 702 F.3d 1066 (8th Cir. 2013)