## Facts

- Federal prosecutors charged Ronald Renee Kantor, Rupert Sebastian McNee, and James Marvin Souter, Jr. with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) for producing a sexually explicit film depicting a minor.
- The film, *Those Young Girls*, was shot on August 2, 1984, and featured Traci Lords engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
- Lords was 16 at the time of filming; defendants did not dispute her minority.
- The government did not assert the film was obscene; prosecution proceeded on the theory that child pornography may be prohibited even if nonobscene.
- Defendants proffered evidence that Lords and her agent misrepresented her age and that defendants reasonably believed she was over 18.
- The government moved in limine to exclude mistake-of-age evidence, arguing § 2251(a) imposes strict liability as to age and that knowledge is not an element.
- The district court denied the motion and indicated it would permit the jury to consider reasonable-belief-of-age evidence.
- The government sought a writ of mandamus from the Ninth Circuit to compel exclusion of the evidence and require strict-liability treatment on age.

## Issues

1. Whether, in a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), defendants may present evidence that they reasonably believed the performer was an adult.
2. Whether barring a reasonable mistake-of-age defense in this setting would violate the First Amendment by chilling constitutionally protected, nonobscene adult expression.
3. Whether mandamus should issue to overturn the district court’s evidentiary ruling and require strict liability as to age.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for a writ of mandamus.
- The court held that the district court did not commit clear error by permitting defendants to present evidence of a reasonable belief that the performer was an adult.
- The court concluded that First Amendment concerns required allowing a reasonable mistake-of-age defense (or comparable scienter protection) in this expressive context.
- Because mandamus requires a clear and indisputable entitlement to relief, and the district court’s approach was constitutionally supportable, extraordinary relief was unavailable.

## Legal Principles

- Although § 2251(a) is written without an explicit knowledge-of-age element, constitutional limits may require a scienter safeguard when applying the statute to expressive activity involving nonobscene sexual depictions.
- Where strict liability would substantially chill protected expression involving adults, defendants must have a meaningful opportunity to show a reasonable, good-faith belief that performers were of legal age.
- Courts may construe a statute to avoid serious constitutional questions when a fairly possible interpretation mitigates First Amendment risk.
- Mandamus is a drastic remedy; it is inappropriate absent a clear abuse of discretion or a clear and indisputable legal duty violated by the district court.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit refused to use mandamus to enforce strict liability as to age under § 2251(a) in a nonobscene expressive setting, holding that defendants could present reasonable mistake-of-age evidence to address First Amendment chilling concerns.


United States v. United States District Court for the Central District of California (Kantor), 858 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1988)