United States v. Thompson
178 F. Supp. 3d 86 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal Rule of Evidence 412, which generally bars evidence of an alleged victim's other sexual behavior, applies in sex trafficking prosecutions. Excluding evidence of a victim's prostitution outside the charged time frame does not violate a defendant's Fifth Amendment right to present a defense or Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses because such evidence is irrelevant to the element of coercion.
Facts:
- The Government alleged that the Defendant operated a commercial sex business in the Western New York area.
- The Defendant was alleged to have recruited women, including three victims, to work as prostitutes under his direction and control.
- The Government alleged that the Defendant used physical and/or psychological coercion to force the victims to engage in commercial sex acts.
- The Defendant was also alleged to have forced the victims to give him the money they earned from these commercial sex acts.
Procedural Posture:
- The Defendant was charged in a four-count superseding indictment in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York.
- Prior to trial, the Government filed motions in limine seeking several forms of relief.
- The Government moved for an order prohibiting the Defendant from introducing any evidence concerning the victims' sexual behavior, including prostitution, that occurred before or after the time period alleged in the indictment.
- The Government also moved for permission to introduce evidence of the victims' sexual behavior during the time period charged in the indictment.
- The Defendant opposed the Government's motion, arguing it would violate his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
- The U.S. District Court considered the pre-trial motions.
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 Federal Rule of Evidence 412, when applied in a sex trafficking prosecution to prohibit a defendant from introducing evidence of the victims' sexual behavior before and after the charged time period, violate the defendant's constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Honorable Richard J. Arcara
No, the application of Federal Rule of Evidence 412 does not violate the defendant's constitutional rights. The rule properly excludes evidence of the victims' pre- and post-indictment sexual behavior because it is irrelevant to the charges and its exclusion is a reasonable limitation on the defendant's rights. First, excluding this evidence does not violate the Fifth Amendment right to present a defense because a victim's past or subsequent sexual behavior is not relevant to whether the defendant used force, fraud, or coercion during the time period charged; the right to present a defense does not include the right to introduce irrelevant evidence. Second, it does not violate the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right to impeach witnesses because courts have wide latitude to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination to prevent harassment and prejudice. A victim's sexual history has no relevance to their credibility, and Rule 412's prohibition is a reasonable limit that still allows for an opportunity for effective cross-examination on other, relevant matters.
Analysis:
This decision affirms the broad applicability of Federal Rule of Evidence 412, the 'rape shield' rule, beyond traditional sexual assault cases to the modern context of sex trafficking prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 1591. It establishes that a victim's history of sex work is irrelevant to proving whether a specific defendant coerced them, thereby preventing defendants from using a victim's past to prejudice the jury. This strengthens protections for trafficking victims by focusing the trial on the defendant's conduct rather than the victim's character, which may encourage more victims to testify. The ruling reinforces that a defendant's constitutional rights to present a defense and confront witnesses do not grant an unfettered license to introduce prejudicial and irrelevant evidence.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Thompson