Epstein Secrets

that the person transported was, in fact, a minor, but need not prove that the defendant was aware of her minority. In conducting its analysis, the Jones Court relied upon cases interpreting sections of Title 21 relating to the distribution of drugs to a minor. See Jones at 540. Those cases have held that t

ther sections of the Mann Act shows that Congress likewise did not intend to require proof of knowledge of age to violate those sections either. See Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc. , 513 U.S. 561, 570 (1995) (noting the "normal rule of statutory construction" that "identical worth used in different parts of the same act are in

that the person transported was, in fact, a minor, but need not prove that the defendant was aware of her minority. In conducting its analysis, the Jones Court relied upon cases interpreting sections of Title 21 relating to the distribution of drugs to a minor. See Jones at 540. Those cases have held that t

ther sections of the Mann Act shows that Congress likewise did not intend to require proof of knowledge of age to violate those sections either. See Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc. , 513 U.S. 561, 570 (1995) (noting the "normal rule of statutory construction" that "identical worth used in different parts of the same act are in

that the person transported was, in fact, a minor, but need not prove that the defendant was aware of her minority. In conducting its analysis, the Jones Court relied upon cases interpreting sections of Title 21 relating to the distribution of drugs to a minor. See Jones at 540. Those cases have held that t

ther sections of the Mann Act shows that Congress likewise did not intend to require proof of knowledge of age to violate those sections either. See Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc. , 513 U.S. 561, 570 (1995) (noting the "normal rule of statutory construction" that "identical words used in different parts of the same act are in

that the person transported was, in fact, a minor, but need not prove that the defendant was aware of her minority. In conducting its analysis, the Jones Court relied upon cases interpreting sections of Title 21 relating to the distribution of drugs to a minor. See Jones at 540. Those cases have held that t

ther sections of the Mann Act shows that Congress likewise did not intend to require proof of knowledge of age to violate those sections either. See Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc. , 513 U.S. 561, 570 (1995) (noting the "normal rule of statutory construction" that "identical words used in different parts of the same act are in

that the person transported was, in fact, a minor, but need not prove that the defendant was aware of her minority. In conducting its analysis, the Jones Court relied upon cases interpreting sections of Title 21 relating to the distribution of drugs to a minor. See Jones at 540. Those cases have held that t

ther sections of the Mann Act shows that Congress likewise did not intend to require proof of knowledge of age to violate those sections either. See Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc. , 513 U.S. 561, 570 (1995) (noting the "normal rule of statutory construction" that "identical words used in different parts of the same act are in