932 F.3d 1067
8th Cir.2019Background
- Anthony Donte Collier was convicted after a jury trial of sex trafficking and attempted sex trafficking (18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1), 1591(b)(1), 1594(a)) and conspiracy to facilitate a prostitution enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 371).
- Collier was on state supervised release when supervising officials learned he was involved in prostitution; he was arrested and an agent (Welle) conducted a warrantless search of his cell phone; police later obtained warrants to search electronics.
- Investigation produced testimony and other evidence that Collier forced or coerced multiple women to engage in commercial sex and kept proceeds; some victims were minors or alleged physical abuse.
- At trial Collier intermittently represented himself, sought continuances and new counsel, and raised multiple evidentiary and procedural objections.
- Collier appealed arguing (inter alia) the warrantless phone search violated the Fourth Amendment; jury instructions misstated mens rea and improperly gave a willful-blindness instruction; his waiver of counsel was involuntary; various trial errors and insufficient evidence as to two trafficking counts.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed in all respects, holding the search lawful under supervised-release conditions, upholding the jury instructions including willful-blindness, finding Collier validly waived counsel when he elected to proceed pro se at times, rejecting asserted trial errors, and concluding the evidence was sufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Collier's Argument | Government/Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to suppress warrantless phone search | Warrantless search at arrest violated Riley and Fourth Amendment | Collier on supervised release had reduced privacy under release conditions; agent was a supervising officer, search reasonable under totality of circumstances and Knights precedent | Denial of suppression affirmed; search reasonable given supervised-release condition and suspicion of illicit activity |
| Jury instructions – mens rea for interstate commerce element | "Knowingly" must apply to the interstate/foreign commerce element of §1591(a)(1) and omission constructively amended indictment | Interstate-nexus is jurisdictional and not subject to a mens rea requirement; instruction mirrored indictment/statute | Court affirmed instruction; "knowingly" does not apply to interstate commerce element; no constructive amendment |
| Jury instructions – willful blindness | Willful-blindness instruction improper because evidence showed only actual knowledge or none; no deliberate avoidance shown | Evidence (directions to victims, money collection, monitoring customers) supported inference of deliberate ignorance; instruction appropriate when defendant claims lack of knowledge | Instruction appropriate; no abuse of discretion in giving willful-blindness charge |
| Right to counsel / Faretta and continuance request | Denial of continuance and pressure to choose self-representation made waiver involuntary | Multiple Faretta colloquies; counsel prepared; last-minute substitution would delay trial; defendant repeatedly chose to proceed | Waiver of counsel was voluntary; denial of continuance not an abuse of discretion |
| Sequestration, evidentiary rulings, computer seizure, judicial bias | Violations of sequestration, improper exclusion of prior prostitution evidence, seizure of Collier's computer impeded cross-examination, judge biased | Sequestration contacts did not prejudice trial; Rule 412 barred prior prostitution evidence; computer seized to prevent witness tampering with accommodations to access discovery; judicial remarks did not rise to extrajudicial bias per Liteky | Court found no abuse of discretion on these trial-management and evidentiary decisions; bias claim rejected |
| Sufficiency of evidence for two trafficking counts (minor and adult victim) | Count Five (minor): victim never engaged in commercial sex so insufficient. Count Six: victim testified voluntary, so insufficient | Statute criminalizes causing or knowingly putting a minor in position to be caused to engage in commercial sex; evidence (texts, jail calls, client testimony, signs of physical abuse) supported coercion of adult victim | Evidence sufficient for both counts; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (addressing warrant requirement for cell-phone searches incident to arrest)
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001) (probationer’s reduced privacy and searches based on reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Jackson, 866 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2017) (supervised-release privacy expectations and searches)
- United States v. Bruguier, 735 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 2013) (reading of "knowingly" in statute and mens rea principles)
- United States v. Garcia-Hernandez, 803 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 2015) (interstate-commerce nexus need not carry mens rea for federal jurisdictional element)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial remarks ordinarily do not establish bias; extrajudicial source required for recusal)
- United States v. Paul, 885 F.3d 1099 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence in §1591 prosecutions)