The defendant and the first victim (18 years old at that time), were dating. The defendant asked the victim to engage in prostitution to earn money. She agreed. The defendant advertised in a magazine. Even though the victim agreed to work in prostitution, the defendant forced her to continue to work in prostitution, and to obey his rules using physical and psychological force. Through the beatings, she sustained lasting physical injury. When she became pregnant he demanded that she abort the pregnancy, and she complied.
The second victim (a 20 year old single mother), met the defendant at a party. The defendant suggested she went into prostitution, stating that working as a prostitute would enable her to earn money. She agreed with him, and then started working as prostitute. When she wanted to stop, she was too scared to do so because she had seen the defendant beating the first victim. She was also beaten by the defendant for breaking his “rules”.
The third victim (an 18 year old), had worked as prostitute before she met the defendant. However, she began working for the defendant at her boyfriend’s suggestion. The defendant told her that he expected her to service at least five clients per day and earn at least $900 for doing so. She was told by the defendant’s cousin that the defendant would use violence to enforce his rules, and indeed the victim was later assaulted by the defendant when she questioned him.
The last victim (a 20 year old), and the defendant were dating, and she had previously worked in prostitution. The defendant encouraged her to re-enter prostitution to earn money. Although she objected at first, he persuaded her, and he began to advertise her services. The defendant told her she should offer a full service to customers for $200, and she should report all transactions to him, as well as hand over all money to him. She felt scared when she saw the defendant beating the first victim and believed that she would also be beaten if she did not obey his rules.
The defendant did not appeal the conviction and sentence of transportation of prostitute, however, he did appeal sex trafficking and conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking. The Court analyzed Title 18, United States Code Section 1591 (sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion) carefully, focusing on the element of Defender’s ‘knowledge’. According to this judgment, the defendant was charged under Section 1591 (a)(1) and (b)(1), that (i) he did knowingly recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, or obtain a person; (ii) the defendant did so knowing that force, fraud, coercion would be used to cause a person to engage in sex commerce; (iii) the defendant’s actions were in or affecting interstate commerce. The defendant actually did recruit victims to engage in sex commerce, and he advertised across state lines so his act had an effect on interstate commerce. The defendant’s knowledge was crucial. The Court understood that the defendant’s knowledge established modus operandi, which would cause a person to engage in prostitution. The defendant had an established practice of living off the earnings of the first victim, so the Court understood that the jury could conclude that the defendant knew he would follow the same pattern with other victims. The Court stated that the evidence of the defendant’s knowledge of his own modus operandi in securing an income from prostitution by a pattern of coercion was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. According to the Court, the ‘knowledge’ required here means that if things went as the defendant had planned, force, fraud, or coercion would be employed to cause the victim to engage in prostitution, and the required knowledge brought the predictable use of force, fraud, or coercion into the definition of sex trafficking; Title 18, United States Code Section 1591. Thus, the Court concluded that there was enough evidence to convict the defendant of sex trafficking. As for conspiracy, the Court stated that there was sufficient evidence to show that the defendant made an agreement with the first victim to further a practice of sex trafficking. Therefore, the Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and the sentence.
