Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed Stephen Pilson's federal convictions for kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) and interstate violation of a protective order under 18 U.S.C. § 2262(a)(1). The court held that sufficient evidence supported the finding that the victim withdrew consent before or during interstate travel, upheld the jury instruction concerning the protective order, and affirmed an obstruction-of-justice sentencing enhancement.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether sufficient evidence supported Pilson's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1), particularly whether Stefanov withdrew her consent before or during interstate travel so that seizure and interstate transportation coincided.
- Whether the district court correctly instructed the jury as a matter of law that the Massachusetts no-contact order qualified as a protection order under 18 U.S.C. § 2266(5)(A), despite Stefanov's opposition to the order.
- Whether the district court procedurally erred by applying an obstruction-of-justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 based on Pilson's pretrial telephone calls to Stefanov.
Holdings
- The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find that Pilson seized or confined Stefanov against her will before or while they crossed state lines, satisfying the nexus between kidnapping and interstate transportation under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1).
- The Massachusetts no-contact order qualified as a protection order under 18 U.S.C. § 2266(5)(A), and the district court properly instructed the jury on that issue as a matter of law.
- Any error in applying the obstruction-of-justice enhancement was harmless because the district court expressly stated that it would impose the same sentence even if the Guidelines range were reduced.
Key quotations
“A kidnapping victim is not prohibited from giving their consent to a kidnapper after the incident has begun (thereby ending the kidnapping) but before crossing state lines.” (at 13-14)
“Put simply, a traveler's consent is not set in stone; rather, they reserve autonomy to decide they want out.” (at 14)
“We cannot agree.” (at 41-42)
Factual background
Pilson and Stefanov had a volatile domestic relationship. In October 2019, Pilson kidnapped and assaulted Stefanov, leading to Massachusetts convictions and a state court no-contact order imposed despite Stefanov's stated opposition. Shortly after Pilson's release, Stefanov voluntarily entered her vehicle with him in Massachusetts, but during the trip Pilson threatened to kill her, drove at high speed toward Canada, assaulted her, and attempted to restrain her. Stefanov escaped after Pilson stopped in Maine, and later jail calls showed Pilson urged her to recant her accusations and threatened suicide.
Procedural history
A federal grand jury returned a two-count superseding indictment. After a jury trial, Pilson was convicted on both counts. The district court denied his motions for judgment of acquittal, applied a two-level obstruction-of-justice enhancement based on recorded jail calls with the victim, and imposed concurrent terms of 156 months on the kidnapping count and 50 months on the protective-order count. The First Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence.