The Tenth Circuit recently issued an important decision in United States v Anthony concerning restitution in conspiracy cases. The facts are unlikely to reoccur very often, but the opinion contains some broadly applicable and helpful points of law.
Mr. Anthony was convicted after trial of conspiracy to entice a child. The evidence showed that he called an “escort service” which sent two minors to his place of business. He touched them both and had sex with one of them. The girls had been ensnared by a pimp, and Mr. Anthony was one of over a hundred customers they had seen.
In ordering restitution, the district court held Mr. Anthony accountable for all the harm the girls suffered during the time they spent working for the pimp. One of the girls had earlier been involved with another pimp in an enterprise wholly unrelated to the later one. The court made no attempt to disaggregate the harm caused during the girl’s involvement with the first pimp from the harm caused during her involvement with the second.
18 U.S.C. § 2259 generally requires proof of “but for” causation
Mr. Anthony’s first claim on appeal was that the district court should have disaggregated the harm caused during the first enterprise. The circuit agreed. And along the way, it ruled that 18 USC 2259, the statute governing restitution for most federal sex crimes, requires a showing of “but for” causation. In doing so, the court rejected the government’s claim that the statute allowed liability based on a theory of multiple independent causes, which would have greatly expanded restitution liability. Using but for causation–a familiar concept in restitution analysis generally–resolution of the claim was easy. Mr. Anthony was obviously not a but for cause of the harms that were caused before his crime was even committed.
Restitution is limited to the harm established by the trial evidence
Mr. Anthony’s second claim was that the court shouldn’t have held him accountable for all the harm that happened during the time the girls were involved with the second pimp. This argument rested on conspiracy law. Conspiracy, of course, is an agreement, and he argued that his only agreement, if any, was to have sex with the girls on that one night. The circuit also agreed with this argument (although Mr. Anthony ultimately lost because the claim wasn’t preserved). The circuit had long held that a conspiracy conviction makes a defendant “liable in restitution for all losses that proximately result from the conspiracy itself, including losses attributable to coconspirators.” And historically, the court had looked to the indictment to define the scope of the conspiracy and hence a defendant’s restitution liability. But here the court held, at least in the case of a trial, that restitution has to be limited to what the evidence actually proved, not what was alleged in the indictment.
Conspiracy liability is limited to the defendant’s own agreement
Here, the evidence only showed, at most, that Mr. Anthony joined a conspiracy to obtain the girls for sex on the night he met with them. The reason? Mr. Anthony’s sole purpose was to “have sex.” Although he likely knew that his decision to pay for sex furthered the overall enterprise, that knowledge was not enough to make him a conspirator in that enterprise. As the circuit put it, “mere knowledge” that his actions furthered an illegal enterprise, even in conjunction with his participation in a small part of the enterprise, doesn’t by itself establish that Anthony “joined in the grand conspiracy.” Id.
- Be sure to take a careful look at restitution in sex offense cases. Except child pornography crimes, Anthony teaches that restitution in the sex offense context is limited to harm that would not have occurred but for the defendant’s offense.
- The evidence, not the indictment, controls, at least when there’s a trial. Restitution is limited to harm established by the evidence at trial, even if the indictment’s allegations are broader.
- Traditional concepts of conspiracy liability apply in the restitution context. Conspiracy liability (including for restitution) is limited to the defendant’s own agreement, even if she knows of the wider conspiracy.