United States of America v. Kira Kristina Zielinski

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3575
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Kira Kristina Zielinski
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: February 17, 2026
Filed: February 26, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Kira Zielinski absconded with her minor child to Mexico, intending to deprive
her ex-husband of his parental rights. When Zielinski returned to the United States,
she was indicted for international parental kidnapping. See 18 U.S.C. § 1204(a).
She intended to invoke § 1204(c)(2)’s affirmative defense, which applies if “the
defendant was fleeing an incidence or pattern of domestic violence,” but the

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
Government moved in limine to exclude any evidence of domestic violence
committed by her ex-husband against their child, arguing that § 1204(c)(2)’s
affirmative defense was not available because it applies only if the defendant
personally suffered the domestic violence. The district court agreed with the
Government’s interpretation of § 1204(c)(2) and determined that, because Zielinski
had not claimed that she was a victim of domestic violence, she could not introduce
the affirmative defense at trial. Following a bench trial on stipulated facts, the
district court found Zielinski guilty and sentenced her to 36 months’ imprisonment.
Zielinski appealed, arguing that the district court’s interpretation of § 1204(c)(2) was
erroneous. The Government urged this court to adopt the district court’s
interpretation. We affirmed. See United States v. Zielinski, 128 F.4th 961 (8th Cir.
2025).
Zielinski petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, once again
arguing that she may assert § 1204(c)(2)’s affirmative defense even if only the
kidnapped child was the victim of domestic violence. Pet. Writ Cert., Zielinski v.
United States, --- U.S. ---, 2026 WL 79683 (2026) (No. 25-5067). In its response to
Zielinski’s petition, the Government abandoned its previous position and adopted
Zielinski’s interpretation of § 1204(c)(2). Br. Resp’t, Zielinski, --- U.S. --- (No. 25-
5067). Therefore, the Government now argued, both this court and the district court
had erred, but the Supreme Court should nonetheless deny the petition because any
error was harmless. Id. The Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari,
vacated our judgment, and remanded “for further consideration in light of the
position asserted by the Solicitor General.” Zielinski v. United States, --- U.S. ---,
2026 WL 79683 (2026).
Accepting the Government’s newfound position that Zielinski could have
presented evidence in support of § 1204(c)(2)’s affirmative defense, we are unable
to assess whether the district court’s order barring her from presenting such evidence
constituted harmless error because the record is insufficiently developed. “The
Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a
complete defense . . . .” Nevada v. Jackson, 569 U.S. 505, 509 (2013) (citation

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
modified). “A constitutional error is harmless when it appears beyond a reasonable
doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.”
Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 17-18 (2003). Here, we are unable to determine
whether the error was harmless because—as the Government argued when last
before us—the current record leaves us “to guess about whether the [kidnapped]
child was competent to testify and about the content of any such trial testimony.”
Without this information, we agree with the Government’s previous assertion that
we “lack[] the record to determine whether any admissible evidence might have
created a reasonable doubt as to her guilt.” We are thus unable to conclude that the
exclusion of evidence related to § 1204(c)(2)’s affirmative defense was harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt.
We therefore remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --