⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Eleventh Circuit hears United States versus Justin Sigmon. A jury convicted Sigmon of abusive sexual contact with a child after an incident in a cruise ship dining room. The prosecution relied on ship surveillance, videos recorded by nearby passengers, and eyewitness testimony. His lawyer will challenge whether that evidence established the required intent. That intent is not limited to sexual gratification: the federal definition also includes an intent to harass or humiliate. The trial judge declined to order a new trial. The appeal separates whether the trial evidence was legally sufficient from whether material improperly reaching the jury requires a new trial. The second issue concerns forfeiture language in an unredacted indictment, wording about property to be surrendered after conviction. Sigmon's lawyer will contend that this language suggested possession of illegal sexual images that the prosecution had not proved, unfairly filling the gap on intent. That is an argument about a possible mistaken inference, not a finding that he possessed those images. The government will contend that the evidence and the judge's instructions made any exposure harmless. An indictment states allegations; it is not proof of guilt. Under the framework being discussed, once a defendant sufficiently establishes exposure to extrinsic material, prejudice is presumed and the government bears the burden of showing harmlessness. Listen for the character of the material, the court's inquiry, and the strength of the evidence, distinct from simply deciding whether the original verdict was supported.

United States v. Justin Sigmon, Appellant (No. 24-14236) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued November 5, 2026.