129 F.4th 514
8th Cir.2025Background
- Anton “Tony” Lazzaro was convicted by a jury of sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy related to the same in federal court.
- Lazzaro used a "sugar dating" model, recruiting minors through online platforms with the assistance of Gisela Castro Medina, who recruited girls aged 16–18 at Lazzaro's request.
- Encounters typically involved providing alcohol, drugs, money, or expensive items to the underage victims in exchange for sex acts at Lazzaro’s condo.
- Lazzaro appealed after the district court denied his motions: challenging the constitutionality of the sex trafficking statute, claiming evidentiary errors, prosecutorial and juror misconduct, and sufficiency of the evidence.
- Lazzaro’s motions included a challenge to the admissibility of state age of consent laws and post-trial claims of juror misconduct based on social media and voir dire non-disclosures.
- The district court denied all motions—both at trial and following post-trial briefing—and sentenced Lazzaro to 252 months in prison.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality/vagueness of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 | Statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied | Statute provides adequate notice and limits discretion | Statute not vague as applied to Lazzaro |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conviction | Evidence insufficient—no explicit offer/payment for sex | Strong evidence of a commercial sex arrangement | Substantial evidence supported all elements |
| Admissibility of state age of consent law | State age of consent law shows good faith compliance | Irrelevant/confusing under federal law (age is 18) | Properly excluded as irrelevant/confusing |
| Prosecutorial and juror misconduct | Government’s comments/prejudiced jury; juror dishonesty | No timely objection; no evidence of prejudice/prejudice | No error; motions untimely or lacking merit |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Galloway, 917 F.3d 631 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard for viewing facts on appeal in light most favorable to verdict)
- United States v. Birbragher, 603 F.3d 478 (8th Cir. 2010) (standards for vagueness challenges)
- United States v. Cook, 782 F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 2015) (analysis of vagueness in federal statutes)
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008) (intent as narrowing mens rea defeating vagueness)
- United States v. Paul, 885 F.3d 1099 (8th Cir. 2018) (intent required under § 1591 for commercial sex act)
- United States v. Euring, 112 F.4th 545 (8th Cir. 2024) (appellate standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641 (1977) (federal law applies regardless of state law)
- McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) (standards for juror dishonesty/partiality for new trial)