## Facts

- William M. Tyson contacted a 17-year-old girl online and communicated with her over several days.
- Tyson drove from Pennsylvania to New York City, picked up the victim and her friend, and transported them to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
- Tyson rented motel rooms in the Harrisburg area during the relevant period; phone records indicated local individuals contacted the victim for commercial sex.
- Law enforcement recovered the victim during a sting operation; investigators found a video depicting the victim performing oral sex on an adult male in a motel room.
- The victim identified the adult male as Tyson.
- A federal grand jury charged Tyson with (1) knowingly transporting a minor to engage in prostitution, 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), and (2) producing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).
- Tyson sought to introduce evidence that he did not know the victim was under 18 and argued mistake of age.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) require the government to prove the defendant knew the victim was under 18.
2. Whether a mistake-of-age affirmative defense may be implied under either statute.
3. Whether the district court erred by excluding mistake-of-age evidence through a motion in limine.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed.
- Knowledge of the victim’s age is not an element of § 2423(a) or § 2251(a).
- Mistake of age is not an affirmative defense to either statute.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding mistake-of-age evidence as legally irrelevant and, alternatively, excludable under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.

## Legal Principles

- Under § 2423(a), “knowingly” modifies the act of transportation (and the intent element) rather than the victim’s age; age is a strict-liability fact.
- Under § 2251(a), use of the term “minor” without an express mens rea requirement as to age indicates Congress did not require proof of knowledge of minority.
- Where statutory text, structure, and history indicate strict liability as to age, courts should not create a mistake-of-age defense absent congressional authorization.
- Evidence offered solely to prove mistake of age may be excluded because it is irrelevant to any element or valid defense; exclusion may also be supported by Rule 403 concerns (unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury).
- Appellate review of evidentiary admissibility rulings is for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court held that §§ 2423(a) and 2251(a) impose strict liability as to the victim’s age, do not permit a mistake-of-age defense, and allow exclusion of mistake-of-age evidence; Tyson’s conviction and concurrent 180-month sentences were affirmed.


United States v. Tyson, 947 F.3d 139 (3d Cir. 2020)