DOJ-OGR-00014334.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 30 of 95 LCI1MAX1 1 across state lines to have her engage in criminal sexual 2 conduct, in violation of New York law. It need not have been 3 her only purpose or motivation, but it must have been more than 4 merely incidental. It must have been one of the dominant 5 purposes of the trip. 6 MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, all that the law requires 7 is that it be one of the dominant purposes of the trip, which 8 is the instruction that the defense originally sought and the 9 Court gave. It's the practice, as Sand endorses, to rephrase 10 "dominant" as "significant or motivating purpose" to avoid 11 confusion, because it doesn't have to be the sole dominant 12 purpose, it just has to be a dominant purpose, and so from 13 Sand, that creates ambiguity that it has to be a sufficient -- 14 such a big purpose that it's the dominant purpose, which is not 15 what is required by the statute. This instruction suggests 16 there's an additional requirement, which is that it be some 17 sort of conscious purpose to engage in the particular criminal 18 violation suggesting knowledge of the criminal statute and 19 criminal prohibition. All the Miller case does is affirm that 20 this instruction is not error. It does not say that that is 21 the required instruction by -- at least as I'm reading the -- 22 I'm reading the Miller case for the first time now, but it is 23 an appeal from a conviction on that instruction. It is not 24 suggesting that it's required by -- 25 THE COURT: Let me look. I've only read the -—- SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P. (212%) 805-0220 2768 DOJ-OGR-00014334