DOJ-OGR-00016956.jpg

be N Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO WO Ww a OY 20 21 22 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 30 of 95 2768 LCT1MAX1 across state lines to hav conduct, in violation of New York law. her only purpose or motivation, merely incidental. It must purposes of the trip. ngag MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, is that it be one of the dominant purposes of is the instruction that the def Court gave. It's the practice, "dominant" as "significant or motivating purpose" in criminal have been one of all that as Sand endorses, sexual It need not have been but it must have been more than the dominant the law requires the trip, which ense originally sought and the to rephrase to avoid confusion, because it doesn't have to be the sole dominant purpose, it just has to be a dominant purpose, Sand, that creates ambiguity such a big purpose that it's what is required by the statu there's an additional requirement, sort of conscious purpose to This that it has to be a suf the dominant purpose, from Ficient —-- violation suggesting knowledge of criminal prohibition. All the Miller case does 23 24 25 I'm reading the Miller case an appeal from a conviction on that suggesting that it's required by -- THE COURT: Let me look. this instruction is not error. the required instruction by —- at the criminal statut It does not say that least as which is not instruction suggests which is that it be some in the particular criminal te and Firm that the first time now, instruction. SOUTHERN DISTR G 1 ERS, (212) 805-0300 that is I'm reading the -- but it is It is not I've only read the —- DOJ-OGR-00016956