tcdla.com - Voice For The Defense Online

F. R. Buck Files Jr.A Defendant-Appellant Prevails on a Sex Offender Registration IssueFor the second month in a row, a United States Court of Appeals has handed down anopin ion interpreting the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42U.S.C. §16913. Last month, it was a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for theFifth Circuit affirming the conviction of a defendant for failing to register as a sex offender,United States v. Whaley, ___ F.3d ___, 2009 WL 2153651 (5th Cir. 2009). This month, it wasa panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding—in a case offirst impression—that the retroactive application of SORNA’s juvenile registration provisionvio lated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. United States v. JuvenileMale, ___ F.3d ___ 2009 WL 2883017 (9th Cir. 2009).The panel in Juvenile Male consisted of Circuit Judges Reinhardt, Tashima, and McKeown,with the opinion authored by Judge Reinhardt. The WestLaw version of the case is 17 pagesin length and is a “must read” for anyone representing individuals in sex offense cases—adultor juvenile. Throughout the opinion, the defendant-appellant is referred to as S.E. JuvenileMale originated in the court of United States District Judge Sam E. Haddon of the Districtof Montana.Judge Reinhardt’s opinion reads, in part, as follows:Federal j-" die .r" JCorner C[; .r JJ C: .r[The Facts]At the age of thirteen, defendant-appellant S.E. engaged in non-consensual sexual actswith a ten-year-old child of the same sex. The sexual activity continued until S.E. wasfifteen years old and the younger child was twelve. S.E. pled “true” to the commissionof acts that, had they been committed by an adult, would constitute aggravated sexualabuse under 18 U.S.C. §1153 and §2241(c), because the younger child was, duringthe period of the charges, under twelve. As a result, S.E. was adjudicated delinquentunder 18 U.S.C. §5031, et seq.In 2005, a year before SORNA was adopted, the district court sentenced S.E. totwo years of detention at a juvenile facility followed by supervised release until histwenty-first birthday. He was not at this point, of course, ordered to register as a sexoffender. S.E. completed his two-year confinement and moved to a prerelease cen terwhere, pursuant to the terms of his sentence, he was to reside for six months. WhenS.E. failed to engage in a required job search, center officials deemed him a programfailure and requested his removal. In 2007, a year after the enactment of SORNA, thedistrict court revoked S.E.’s supervised release due to his failure to re side at the center14 VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE October 2009