913 F. Supp. 2d 555
M.D. Tenn.2012Background
- Action involved 30 defendants; Second Superseding Indictment charged sex trafficking of minors under 18 under 1591 and related conspiracy statutes.
- Defendants Fahra, Kayachith, and Yusuf moved for acquittal or dismissal; trial occurred March–April 2012 with verdicts against some defendants on Counts One and Two, and Counts Twelve and Thirteen for Fahra.
- Jury acquitted several defendants on Counts One and Two; found Fahra guilty on Counts One and Twelve, and Kayachith and Yusuf guilty on Count One but not on Counts Two, Twelve, or Thirteen.
- Defendants argued age of Jane Doe Two, conspiracy structure, false testimony, and multiple-conspiracies theories; government produced discovery materials late, leading to 2012 motions.
- Court reserved Rule 29(b) acquittal motions and grouped defenses around age, conspiracy, false testimony, multiple conspiracies, and discovery issues; the memorandum addresses all but Fahra’s venue challenge on Count Twelve.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence on Jane Doe Two’s age | Doe Two’s trial testimony plus corroborating lay, school, and photos satisfy age element. | Age not proven beyond a reasonable doubt; grand jury and pretrial statements inconsistent. | Age element not insufficient; acquittal denied. |
| Whether government proved joining a single conspiracy | Proof shows Fahra, Yusuf, and Kayachith joined an overarching conspiracy to traffic a minor for commercial sex. | No proof that Kayachith joined or knew of a single overarching conspiracy; possible separate conspiracies. | Court finds issues with single-conspiracy theory and treats as contested; analysis continued in later sections. |
| Whether the evidence proved a single conspiracy or multiple conspiracies | Proof tied defendants to a unified venture to traffic minors; evidence supports one conspiracy. | Record shows parallel, disconnected conspiracies; risk of prejudice from multiple conspiracies. | Court finds multiple-conspiracies variance; grants relief by dismissing conspiracy counts or granting new trials; substantial prejudice found. |
| Whether Jane Doe Two’s false testimony/material omissions warrant acquittal or new trial | Discrepancies are credibility issues for the jury; omissions do not establish perjury. | Omissions and false statements are material and prejudicial; government knew or should have known. | Credibility concerns acknowledged; not indisputable perjury; but prejudice analyzed with discovery issues. |
| Discovery violations and impact on rights; new trial requests | Delayed Jencks/Brady/Giglio disclosures impeded defense; extraordinary prejudice justifies new trial. | Disclosures were extensive but timely; no basis for new trial. | Court grants new trials for Yusuf (and Kayachith and Fahra on related grounds) due to discovery violations and newly discovered age evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (warnings against dragnet conspiracies; multiple conspiracies risk prejudice)
- Swafford, 512 F.3d 833 (6th Cir. 2008) (multi-conspiracy proof requires prejudice showings; not always reversible error)
- Direct Sales Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 703 (1943) (conspiracy charges not proved by piling inferences)
- United States v. Warner, 690 F.2d 545 (6th Cir. 1982) ( hub-and-spoke conspiracies; need common goal and interdependence)
- United States v. Blackwell, 459 F.3d 739 (6th Cir. 2006) (curative effects of jury instructions in multi-conspiracy cases)