## Facts

- Donald J. McGuire, a Jesuit priest based in Illinois, frequently led religious retreats requiring interstate and international travel and had substantial control over travel logistics.
- Beginning in the late 1990s, he recruited underage boys, including a minor referred to as Dominick, to accompany him as “assistants” on trips.
- During these trips, McGuire sexually abused the minors, using recurring methods that included shared sleeping arrangements, massages that progressed to sexual contact, exposure to pornography, and coercive manipulation.
- In 1991, his religious order imposed a restriction barring him from traveling with boys under 18, but he continued traveling with underage assistants.
- The government charged McGuire under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) for traveling in interstate and foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with a minor.
- A jury convicted him in federal district court, and he received a 25-year prison sentence.
- McGuire appealed, challenging the legal standard for “purpose” under § 2423(b) and the admission of testimony from additional minors.

## Issues

1. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b), must illicit sexual conduct be the defendant’s sole purpose for interstate or foreign travel, or is it enough that it was a dominant or significant purpose?
2. Did the district court abuse its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 by admitting testimony from other minors describing similar abuse?

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that § 2423(b) does not require illicit sex to be the sole purpose of travel; it is sufficient if illicit sexual conduct was a dominant, significant, or motivating purpose.
- The court held that admitting other-victim testimony was not an abuse of discretion under Rule 403 because it was strongly probative of intent, purpose, and a consistent pattern of conduct, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- For 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b), “for the purpose of” is satisfied when illicit sexual conduct is a dominant or significant purpose of the travel; lawful or legitimate coexisting purposes do not defeat liability.
- Purpose and intent may be proved circumstantially through evidence showing repeated recruitment of minors for travel and a recurring method of sexual exploitation during trips.
- Under Rule 403, evidence that is damaging is not excluded merely because it is prejudicial; exclusion requires unfair prejudice that substantially outweighs probative value.
- In prosecutions requiring proof of purpose or intent, testimony from additional victims describing a consistent pattern may be admissible to show intent, purpose, and modus operandi, subject to Rule 403 balancing and deference to the trial court’s assessment.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld McGuire’s § 2423(b) conviction, ruling that illicit sex need not be the exclusive reason for interstate or foreign travel and that other-victim testimony showing a recurring pattern of abuse was properly admitted to prove travel purpose and intent.


United States v. McGuire, 627 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2010)