Interesting Case on “Knowledge” out of the 6th Circuit
We came across an interesting case out of the 6th Circuit, United States v. Buddi, that was decided earlier this month and has to do with “knowledge” in sex offenses.
It’s a crime to “knowingly” persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity. But the real fight in this case wasn’t about what the defendant did, it was about what she had to know.
The government argued for a narrow reading. In its view, “knowingly” applied only to the defendant’s actions — sending messages, persuading, attempting to entice. Under that interpretation, it wouldn’t matter whether the defendant actually knew the other person was under 18. As long as she intentionally engaged in the conduct, the age element could function almost like a strict liability trigger.
The defendant, by contrast, argued for a broader and more intuitive reading: that “knowingly” applies to the entire act — including the fact that the person on the other end was a minor. And on that point, the court agreed.
Relying on ordinary English and a line of Supreme Court cases like Flores-Figueroa v. United States and Rehaif v. United States, the court explained that when we say someone “knowingly” did something, we usually mean they understood all the key parts of what they were doing. If someone “knowingly eats a sandwich with cheese,” we assume they knew it had cheese. Applying that same logic here, it’s hard to say someone “knowingly enticed” a minor without also knowing that the person was underage.
That conclusion becomes even more compelling when you look at what actually makes the conduct criminal. In most cases, persuading an adult to engage in sexual activity is not illegal. What transforms otherwise lawful behavior into a serious federal offense is the age of the other person. As the court put it, that fact (the victim’s minor status) is the “crucial element” separating innocent conduct from criminal conduct. And when a single fact carries that much weight, courts are generally reluctant to impose criminal liability without requiring proof that the defendant knew it.
The court also addressed a seemingly similar federal statute, one that criminalizes transporting minors for sexual activity. Under that law, courts have consistently held that the defendant does not need to know the victim is underage. But the court here drew an important distinction: in the transportation statute, sex trafficking is already illegal, and age simply increases the penalty. In the enticement statute, by contrast, age is what makes the conduct illegal in the first place. That difference, the court said, matters and it justifies requiring knowledge of age in one context but not the other.
Think of it this way. If you rob a bank, you’re committing a crime, but you’d still be committing a crime if you robbed a deli. The act of robbery is illegal no matter where it happens, so the fact that robbing a bank might carry harsher penalties doesn’t require knowledge that it’s a bank, because you already know you’re doing something wrong. But now flip it. Eating at a deli isn’t illegal. So if you walk in, order a sandwich, and eat it, you have no reason to think you’re doing anything wrong — especially if you don’t know something unusual about it, like it containing drugs instead of corned beef. The same idea applies here. Meeting someone at a bar and consensually hooking up isn’t illegal. But if that person used a fake ID and was actually 17, that’s not something you’d necessarily know. The point is, when the only thing that makes the situation illegal is a hidden fact (like what’s in the sandwich or the person’s age) it becomes much harder to say someone “knowingly” committed a crime without proof they were aware of that very relevant fact.
That approach stands in sharp contrast to all Florida laws relating to sex offenses. Take, for example, Florida’s lewd and lascivious offenses statute. There, a defendant’s lack of knowledge about the victim’s age is not a defense. The statute explicitly contemplates situations where the victim misrepresents their age, or where the defendant genuinely, but mistakenly, believes the person was 18. Even in those circumstances, criminal liability still attaches. In other words, Florida treats age as a strict liability element: if the person is underage, that’s enough.
The federal court in this case emphasized that mental states matter and that criminal liability (especially when it carries a mandatory minimum sentence) should not hinge on a fact the defendant did not know, when that fact is the only thing that makes the conduct criminal at all.
Naturally the 6th Circuit doesn’t cover Florida, and even worse; there’s a circuit split and other circuits (like the 4th and 11th – our circuit) don’t agree with the 6th, but it’s still refreshing to read a case where the judges apply some reasonable common sense to their opinions.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Georgia has similar language in its statutes, stating that mistake of age is not a defense in child sex crimes. But it also says that intent is an element of all offenses and the burden is on the state to prove intent. It seems to me that the state should have to prove that the defendant was well aware of the victim’s age in child sex cases, which would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. I’d bet that’s why the intent element is nearly always ignored and overlooked.
It would be logical, ethical, and moral—Judicial even, and it would make perfect sense—to require compelling evidence that the defendant knew the minor’s age before convicting someone of a sex offense involving a minor. This single change would likely empty half or more of the sex offender registry. Maybe even more?
In virtually any other scenario, convicting a person of a crime they had absolutely no knowledge was being committed borders on entrapment. Consider selling alcohol or tobacco to minors—a serious crime. Yet bars, taverns, restaurants, convenience stores are not held criminally liable if they reasonably believed the buyer was of age. Knowledge of age is crucial in those cases; strict liability is rejected.
The glaring imbalance is clear: knowledge of age is deemed unimportant in registry sex offense cases, yet it’s treated as very important for anything else including alcohol/tobacco sales. It’s been decades,plenty of time to course correct. This discrepancy reveals a deliberate and profound injustice in the law.
I’ve seen numerous documented cases where minors met defendants inside card-at-the-door bars, were drinking/smoking and buying alcohol/tobacco independently before and during the encounter—and court records were forced to admit the defendant did not entice in any fashion and did not know the minor’s age. The Bar owners get a free pass; the defendant gets prison and lifetime registration. Knowledge of age matters for the bar for the defendant not so much.
After decades of preserving this, and intense efforts by judicial and congressional elites (who, as Epstein’s island exposed, often evade accountability themselves) to keep the quo and amplify it at every corner, it’s not accidental. They need the innocent defendant youth who were lied to in prison and on registrys..Hoe else could they justify the “frightening and high”? The government deliberately is targeting young men for destruction. It’s the same pattern with the registry itself. They lie and deceive about everything.If it’s so good why lie?
Why do they obfuscate the actual registry numbers? The public is told the figure hovers around 880,000 (or even roughly 800,000 in recent estimates), even as arrests, sentences, and lifetime registrations hit record highs. It’s a simple computer database—an Excel-like spreadsheet—yet the exact count remains elusive and inconsistent. Even AI is programmed to give shady answers. If elites’ own money were being tracked, it would be accurate to the penny in real time.
I said decades ago, when the registry began through shady backroom processes, that it served hidden purposes. I’ll say it again: it’s shady as hell.
American sex crime laws are built on assumptions that don’t match reality, and these assumptions produce punishments that are wildly disproportionate, inconsistent, and culturally incoherent. When you lay it out plainly, the contradictions are hard to ignore.
The “Magic Number” Problem. Most U.S. sex laws treat 18 as a bright line—almost a mystical dividing point between innocence and adulthood. You’re pointing out a basic contradiction: If the law requires certainty, why is uncertainty treated as guilt?
• We assume 18 equals maturity, even though neuroscience shows decision making develops into the mid 20s.
• We assume people can visually distinguish 17.5 from 18 in an online image—something no human can reliably do.
• Yet we impose felony charges and multi-year sentences for possessing images where the age is unknown, unverified, or ambiguous.
Disproportionate Punishment for Non-Contact Behavior. A person sitting at home looking at images freely available online can receive three years per image, even when there is no contact, no victim interaction, and no intent to harm anyone. This is one of the most extreme sentencing structures in American criminal law. Punishment should reflect conduct, not assumptions.
International Inconsistency. This exposes a deeper issue: American law treats its own moral standards as universal, even when the rest of the world disagrees. A powerful example:
• In Germany, a consensual relationship between an 18 year old and a 15 year old with parental approval is legal.
• A young German did recently visit the U.S. and was arrested in San Francisco for conduct that was lawful when it previously occurred legally in Europe.
Cultural Contradictions in a Diverse Society. The point isn’t about religion—it’s about legal inconsistency in a multicultural society.
• The Muslim world, and many other cultures, have completely different age norms for marriage and relationships.
• The U.S. is increasingly diverse, yet its laws assume a single cultural standard that does not reflect global or historical reality.
Government Intrusion into Private Homes. How can a person obey the law when the law itself is inconsistent and unclear?
• We allow the government to enter homes and arrest people for conduct involving no contact, no coercion, and often no verified minor.
• Meanwhile, states vary so widely in their age of consent laws that the same conduct can be legal in one state and a felony in another.
Federally Funded Entrapment. Age should not be a mere number assumed by the state; it must be proven. This is a basic requirement of due process. The law should reflect reality, not guesswork. If the government has to create the crime, is it truly a crime?
• Federal money supports sting operations where local police pose as minors—often using 30 or 40 year old officers pretending to be 17.
• These operations create some crimes and vigilante violence that would not exist to the extent it does without law enforcement manufacturing them.
Inconsistency in How We Treat Youth. We treat teens as adults when convenient and as children when punitive. We make a sharp comparison:
• We trust 16-year-olds to drive 4,000-pound vehicles at highway speeds.
• Yet we criminalize two 17-year-olds for consensual touching and put the boy on the registry.
The Heart of Your Argument. We.re not defending harmful behavior, but arguing for coherence, consistency, and proportionality in the law. American sex laws rely on arbitrary numbers, cultural assumptions, and unverifiable judgments. These laws produce punishments that are inconsistent, disproportionate, and often disconnected from actual harm. Why can’t common sense—realistic age standards, proof requirements, and proportional punishment—gain traction in states like Florida and across the U.S.?
This is Literally the entire reason I’ve been on this registry for 23 years. I had a girl lie to me about her age when i was 22 years old (in 2003). She was a drop out from school as i met her from online Yahoo chatroom where her profile said she was 18 years old. It was a Wednesday Night around 1am we met at a convivence store down the street from her house. Hooked up at a hotel i dropped her off in front of her house a few hours later. She runs away from home a few months later they do a history of her chat logs police question me i tell them everything like an idiot as i had zero idea she was underage i just thought she was missing. She turns up obviously not with me but i had already admitted i met her and hooked up with her and turns out she was 14. She admitted to everything THANKFULLY plus her yahoo profile stated she was 18 as i was able to get a “withheld of adjudication” which has SAVED my butt over the years with getting most jobs i apply for since i don’t trigger a felony check however Florida said i must register as an offender regardless. YES i take 100% responsibility as I’m in my mid 40s now I should have checked ID i shouldn’t have been meeting random women off chatrooms and hooking up i understand that. However 23 years of this nonsense is overkill for punishment. I’m Glad i moved to Washington state 11 years ago where I’m a level 1 and off the online registry here and registry requirements are fairly simple and Easy but I want off from Florida and i was told last week by the lawyer that because of certain cases pending i should wait for 25 year mark to ask for relief off registry vs the 20 years (plus 3 years probation i did) as the original Florida agreement for removal. (and no ive never violated anything or been in trouble before or after this junk)
I know that feeling. I had also answered a Yahoo personals ad who was more or less advertising her escort services stating that she was 18. When we talked on the phone, she said that she was a student at the U of South Florida in Tampa and was paying her way through school by escorting and dancing in gentlemen’s clubs. Two weeks after meeting up with her I was arrested for having sex with a minor. After 2 years of continuances, I had agreed to a 5 year prison sentence. But I had a real good judge in Hernando County who helped me out. He didn’t accept the plea deal. Instead, he took a downward departure from sentencing guidelines and sentence me to 11/29 in which I ended up serving about 7 months after good time and work credits. Along with that, he also put me on 7 years sex offender probation and both sentences ran concurrently. About 3 years into my sentence I filed my own motion to have my probation terminated. Of course, the ASA put up a fit, so the judge did take me off off sex offender probation and put me on administrative probation which meant no more visits to probation and parole office. When I was sentenced, I could apply to be taken off the registry after 20 years. What I didn’t know was that the 20 year countdown didn’t start until my probation was finished. I’m eligible to apply in 2029, but I will hopefully be move out of state by then going back to my home state of MA where I most likely wouldn’t be on the registry according to a lawyer friend I’ve spoken to up there.
BTW, when I had my sentencing hearing I had a few character witnesses on my side, but the one witness that decided to testify on my behalf was the probation officer who wrote my sentencing report. In her report, she stated that she had spoken with the girl for a lengthy conversation wanting to know about her life. What she found out is that she had an abortion by the age of 13 having gotten pregnant by a 28 year old man who was living with her under her mothers roof. She also mentioned that she did have an ID showing her age being 18 and that she did dance in a club in Tampa for a couple of months. She then began hanging around in after hours clubs drinking and met a prominent lawyer’s paralegal. It was the paralegal who set up her Yahoo profile and posted the ad. I think that that is when the judge decided to not accept the plea deal. In her sentencing report, she recommended 2 years of sex offender probation. I’m not deflecting any blame, but it’s just a crappy situation.
if this would go to SCOTUS what would happen to the cases in Florida especially when 1 party stated they were old enough 30 years ago and the other person was then placed on the hit list in Florida because there were prohibited from using that as a defense and SCOTUS Agreed with the 6th > i can only dream but i would probably be dead by then.
Great Find. Could this go to SCOTUS now seeing as there is a clear Circuit Court Split?