United States v. Jermayne Whyte
928 F.3d 1317 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In sex trafficking of a minor prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 1591, the government need not prove that the defendant knew or recklessly disregarded the victim’s age if it proves the defendant had a 'reasonable opportunity to observe' the minor victim.
Facts:
- A.E., a 16-year-old runaway from California, arrived in Florida and began working for an escort agency, engaging in prostitution under false identities.
- Jennifer Castro, an adult prostitute, contacted A.E. and invited her to live with Castro and her partner, Jermayne Whyte, and their baby in their townhouse, where A.E. stayed for about two months.
- Whyte and Castro encouraged A.E. to work at strip clubs, obtaining a false identification for her under the name 'Jessica Berry' (24-25 years old) to facilitate this.
- Whyte and Castro managed A.E.'s prostitution, posting ads for her on Backpage.com, choosing ad content, setting prices, arranging clients, and collecting the money A.E. earned.
- Whyte drove A.E. to Atlanta for more lucrative strip club work, where one club refused to let A.E. work because she 'look[ed] young' and her appearance did not match her false identification.
- During a police interview, Castro described A.E. as 'very immature' and stated she 'had questions about her age from almost the first time she met her,' believing A.E. 'might be lying about how old she was.'
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury returned a superseding indictment against Jermayne Whyte and Jennifer Castro in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of a minor, sex trafficking of a minor, and knowingly transporting an individual in interstate commerce for prostitution.
- Whyte and Castro filed a motion in the district court to suppress evidence obtained under a search warrant, arguing Detective Masters's affidavit omitted A.E.'s criminal history.
- The district court denied the motion to suppress after conducting a Franks evidentiary hearing, finding the detective credible and that the omission was not deliberate or reckless.
- The district court ruled that the government only needed to prove Whyte and Castro had a 'reasonable opportunity to observe' A.E. and did not need to prove knowledge or reckless disregard of her age, thus precluding a mistake-of-age defense.
- A jury in the district court found Whyte and Castro guilty of all charges.
- Probation officers prepared presentence investigation reports, and Whyte and Castro raised several objections to their guideline calculations.
- At a joint sentencing hearing, the district court denied some of Whyte and Castro's requested reductions and objections, applying certain enhancements, and sentenced Whyte to 300 months of imprisonment and Castro to 188 months of imprisonment.
- Whyte and Castro appealed their convictions and sentences to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
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 the 2015 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 1591 permit the government to secure a conviction for sex trafficking of a minor by proving only that the defendant had a 'reasonable opportunity to observe' the victim, rather than requiring proof of the defendant’s actual knowledge or reckless disregard of the victim's age?
Opinions:
Majority - William Pryor, Circuit Judge
Yes, the government may prove sex trafficking of a minor by establishing that the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the minor victim, without needing to prove the defendant knew or recklessly disregarded the victim's age. The plain language of the 2015 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c) explicitly states that when a defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the victim, the government 'need not prove that the defendant knew, or recklessly disregarded the fact, that the person had not attained the age of 18 years.' This interpretation gives effect to all parts of the statute, particularly the 'need not prove' clause, avoiding surplusage and aligning with other circuit courts. The court rejects reliance on prior Eleventh Circuit dictum in United States v. Mozie, as the 2015 amendment abrogated that interpretation by adding 'recklessly disregarded' to subsection (c). Furthermore, the 'reasonable opportunity to observe' standard is not unconstitutionally vague, as established by prior precedent, and Castro had ample opportunities to observe A.E. over two months.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the mens rea requirement for the victim's age in child sex trafficking prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 1591 in the Eleventh Circuit. By definitively holding that 'reasonable opportunity to observe' is an alternative to proving actual knowledge or reckless disregard of age, the court lowers the prosecutorial burden. This ruling solidifies Congress's intent post-2015 amendment, abrogating prior circuit dictum, and makes it easier to convict defendants who exploit minors but claim ignorance of their age, emphasizing the importance of diligence regarding a victim's apparent age and the consequences for failing to ascertain it.
