United States v. Julian

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2005 · Evidence

427 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceRule 413Rule 403prior sexual assaultpropensity evidenceconspiracy withdrawalplain errorApprendi

Facts

Julian and Robert Decker created and operated a resort in Acapulco that recruited boys, including homeless and very young boys, to provide sexual services to guests. Julian funded the operation, created the website and advertising, booked guests, and on some occasions hosted clients at the resort. He later helped Armando, a former boy at the resort who had provided sex to guest Louis Accordini in exchange for support, travel toward the United States so that Armando could join Accordini, who intended to provide shelter, food, clothing, and spending money in exchange for sex. At trial, the government also introduced evidence of Julian's prior conviction for sexually assaulting his 11-year-old stepson.

Issue

Whether Julian's sentence on the conspiracy count could rest on a judge's finding that the conspiracy continued past the effective date of a statutory increase and that he had not withdrawn; whether the evidence was sufficient to support the prostitution-transportation conviction; whether the district court properly admitted Julian's prior sexual assault conviction under Rule 413; and whether the sentencing enhancements and pre-Booker sentencing procedure required reversal.

Rule

When a charged conspiracy spans a statutory amendment that increases the maximum penalty, the jury must determine whether the conspiracy continued beyond the amendment's effective date because that fact affects the permissible statutory maximum under ex post facto and Apprendi principles. A conspirator withdraws only by an affirmative act that defeats or disavows the conspiracy; merely stopping participation is not enough. For liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2421, prostitution need only be a significant motive for the transportation, not the sole or principal one. In a prosecution charging an offense of sexual assault, Rule 413 allows admission of prior sexual assault evidence for any relevant purpose, including propensity, subject to Rule 403.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal prosecution in Chicago, Noah Mercer is charged with conspiring to arrange trips so adults can sexually assault minors. At trial, Mercer claims he thought the venture was only a lawful youth-hostel business. The government offers proof that 14 years earlier Mercer pleaded guilty in Ohio to molesting a 12-year-old neighbor.

Which is the strongest argument for admitting the prior conviction?

Explanation. The majority explained that in a criminal prosecution charging an offense of sexual assault, Rule 413 permits admission of prior sexual assault evidence for any relevant purpose, including propensity, subject to Rule 403 balancing. It also rejected any categorical time bar based on remoteness. A prior molestation can be relevant to rebut a claim of innocent involvement in a purportedly legitimate enterprise.