United States v. Jeremy Mack
808 F.3d 1074, 2015 FED App. 0699N, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18018 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A scheme that exploits a person's drug addiction by creating a fictitious debt and then withholding drugs to induce severe withdrawal symptoms constitutes coercion through the threat of "serious harm" under the federal sex trafficking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1591.
Facts:
- Jeremy Mack, with his co-conspirator Ashley Onysko, ran an enterprise distributing drugs and recruiting young women with drug addictions for prostitution.
- Mack supplied heroin to 'MB', then informed her she had a significant drug debt that could only be repaid through prostitution.
- Mack provided cocaine for free to 'MS', cultivating an addiction, before manipulating her supply to cause withdrawal symptoms and threatening her.
- Mack supplied heroin on credit to another addict, 'SW', creating a debt and then withholding drugs until she agreed to prostitute herself.
- Mack controlled the victims' access to drugs, food, and necessities, creating total dependency and using their withdrawal symptoms as a tool of control.
- Mack maintained a climate of fear through violence and threats, including striking one victim, choking another, and stating he was not afraid to kill or dismember them.
- Mack and Onysko arranged prostitution sessions for the women via Backpage.com, transported them to hotels, and collected all the money they earned.
- When deprived of drugs, the victims suffered severe withdrawal symptoms including vomiting, shaking, and uncontrollable leg movements, which compelled them to continue prostituting themselves.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeremy Mack was charged in the U.S. District Court with conspiracy, sex trafficking, and other offenses.
- Before trial, Mack filed a motion to suppress evidence from a motel room search, which the district court denied.
- Mack also filed a motion to admit evidence of the victims' prior prostitution history, which the district court also denied.
- Following a six-day jury trial, Mack was convicted on one count of conspiracy and four counts of sex trafficking.
- The district court sentenced Mack to life in prison for the sex trafficking convictions.
- Mack (appellant) appealed his convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove coercion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's scheme of supplying drugs to addicted individuals, creating a drug debt, and then withholding those drugs to cause painful withdrawal symptoms in order to compel them to engage in commercial sex acts constitute 'coercion' under 18 U.S.C. § 1591?
Opinions:
Majority - Griffin, Circuit Judge
Yes. A defendant's scheme of exploiting victims' drug addictions constitutes coercion under 18 U.S.C. § 1591. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient for a jury to find that Jeremy Mack used coercion to cause the victims to engage in commercial sex acts. The statute defines 'coercion' as a 'scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that failure to perform an act would result in serious harm.' The court found that Mack's actions—supplying drugs to create or exacerbate an addiction, manufacturing a fictitious debt, and then withholding drugs to induce painful withdrawal—fit this definition. The court reasoned that the severe physical and psychological suffering of drug withdrawal qualifies as 'serious harm' under the statute, which includes 'any harm, whether physical or nonphysical... that is sufficiently serious... to compel a reasonable person of the same background and in the same circumstances' to perform the act. The fact that the victims had pre-existing addictions does not negate Mack's culpability; rather, he exploited their vulnerability. This coercive scheme was further supported by sufficient evidence of direct force and threats of violence.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies and broadens the interpretation of 'coercion' and 'serious harm' under the federal sex trafficking statute. By explicitly recognizing the manipulation of a drug addiction and the threat of withdrawal as a form of non-physical coercion, the court provides a strong precedent for prosecutors in cases where traffickers control victims through dependency rather than overt physical restraint. This ruling makes it more difficult for defendants to argue that victims 'consented' simply because they were pre-existing drug users. It adapts the application of the statute to the modern realities of trafficking, where psychological and physiological manipulation are common tools of control.
