The District of Columbia Court of Appeals suspended an attorney in 2012 as a consequence of a federal conviction “on the charge of traveling in foreign commerce with the intent to engage in sex with a minor between the ages of twelve and sixteen, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) (2000).”

Inexplicably (and read the court’s description of the offense), the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility concluded that the offense did not involve moral turpitude per se and held that the attorney was entitled to a full hearing before final sanction is imposed.

We noted when the Board ruled

Notably, both non-lawyer members of the board dissented and would find the conviction meets the definition of a crime of moral turpitude: “base, vile or depraved, or [where] society manifests a revulsion toward such conduct because it offends generally accepted morals.”

Lay Member John Barker:

I disagree that the offense is less serious than other sex crimes against children simply because the operative conduct is travel with unlawful intent. One who commits the offense does not merely travel with a bad idea. Rather he or she specifically intends to commit an act of sexual abuse against a child and travels for the express purpose of carrying out the crime.

I agree completely.

Thus, two full years after the conviction was affirmed, the disciplinary case remains pending.

From the January 2015 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirming the conviction is the story of a patron of the arts who sexually abused a child who he was assisting financially in a career as a dancer

At some point, Schneider began engaging in sexual activity with the victim. As of August 2000, Schneider and the victim were engaging in oral sex on Schneider’s bed approximately three times per week. Thereafter, Schneider and the victim moved to a second apartment near the Academy. At this point, Schneider and the victim were also engaging in anal sex, with sexual activities occurring approximately three to four times per week. Near this time, a school nurse examined the victim. Schneider told the victim that if the nurse asked questions about the condition of the victim’s anus, the victim should tell her that he had been using a solid stick of hemorrhoid medication. Schneider told the victim that if anyone discovered their sexual activity, Schneider would go to jail and the victim would not achieve his goals of becoming a famous ballet dancer or going to America. Around this time, Schneider showed the victim a movie about a famous male ballet dancer and his older male mentor and lover, and compared their relationship to the one in the film.

The victim and Schneider lived for a time in Philadelphia and

Upon their return, the victim returned to living at Schneider’s apartment, and Schneider and the victim resumed engaging in oral and anal sex. When the victim was sixteen, Schneider and the victim moved to Massachusetts, where the victim attended school and danced professionally. In 2008, the victim filed a civil complaint against Schneider and members of Schneider’s family, among others, alleging that Schneider had sexually abused the victim for years.

The attorney raised a number of issues including application of the “innocent round trip” exception to the Mann Act

Several facts directly link Schneider’s travel from Russia to the United States and back with his desire to continue a sexually abusive relationship with the victim. The victim and Schneider’s relationship was, from the outset, grounded in Schneider’s promise that he would “make [the victim] a star,” which was the victim’s father’s dream. App. at 274. Further, from their very first meeting, Schneider had discussed with the victim his “interest[] in going to America.” App. at 567-68. The victim was “interested about [sic] America” and “interested in going to America to study and, perhaps, to have a career.” App. at 580-81. Schneider only had access to the victim because he was able to help him stay enrolled in a prestigious ballet academy and provide the resources to help propel the victim’s ballet career. With this trip, Schneider was providing the victim with an exciting overseas excursion as part of Schneider’s promise to propel his ballet career forward.

Thus, the trip to Philadelphia was a critical component of Schneider’s scheme to sexually abuse the victim; it was not a “complete break or interlude” in the illicit activities. See Mortensen, 322 U.S. at 375. The trip was not an “innocent” recreational trip or vacation that may have had the incidental effect of currying favor with the victim and therefore is distinguishable from Mortensen and the other cases where the innocent round trip exception has been applied.

No relief was granted on issues relating to the defendant’s penis

Schneider contends that this testimony holds probative value because it supports his argument to the jury that his penis did not match the victim’s drawings and description, thus undermining a key piece of the evidence. He states that the facts that he was unable to receive treatment prior to the expert examination due to his incarceration and that the expert’s testimony was that his penis—examined while incarcerated—did not match the victim’s drawings and descriptions, support his argument that the victim did not have knowledge of what his penis looked like, and that Schneider therefore did not have sexual contact with the victim. Schneider contends that this adverse ruling “made it far more likely [that he] would be convicted on these charges by excluding compelling evidence that [the victim] had fabricated his claims of sexual abuse.” Appellant’s Br. at 47.

Schneider overstates the probative value of this testimony, as he had the ability to alter his penile condition prior to his ultimate incarceration before trial. Schneider first learned of the victim’s accusations of sexual abuse in August 2008, eighteen months before he was initially arrested, and first learned of the victim’s affidavit and drawings by January 27, 2010, two months before he was arrested. Furthermore, Schneider was free on bail for six weeks from March 29, 2010 to May 17, 2010. Because Schneider had multiple periods to receive treatment before he was incarcerated, the fact that he could not receive treatment in the months leading up to the trial has little probative value to the crucial issue of the victim’s familiarity with Schneider’s penis. In addition, because Schneider was permitted to mention that he could not receive treatment during the pre-trial period, the incremental probative value of mentioning his incarceration is low.

The court also rejected arguments that the government breached its disclosure obligations and that there was newly-discovered perjury.