United States v. Bradley Cook
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5723
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- In 2002–2009, co-defendants Edward and Marilyn Bagley recruited and brutally abused a girl (FV), filmed and livestreamed sexual torture, and advertised her for commercial sex; Bagley had FV sign a “sex slavery contract.”
- Bradley Cook viewed and communicated about the videos beginning in 2004, traveled to Bagley’s trailer to participate in sexual acts and torture, sent Bagley videos and advice on torture methods, and provided materials used to coerce FV.
- Cook was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (2006) for commercial sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion; he moved to dismiss Count 2 arguing § 1591 was unconstitutionally vague as applied to a purchaser of commercial sex.
- Cook pleaded guilty to Count 2 under a conditional plea preserving appeal of the denial of his motion to dismiss; the government dismissed other counts.
- The district court denied the motion, holding § 1591(a)(2) (benefitting “financially or by receiving anything of value” from a venture) and the statute’s mens rea provided adequate notice and limited arbitrary enforcement.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding § 1591(a)(2) applies to purchasers who otherwise violate the statute and is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Cook.
Issues
| Issue | Cook's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1591(a)(2) applies to purchasers of commercial sex | § 1591(a)(2) was intended to target suppliers/traffickers, not purchasers | Statute’s text and precedent permit application to purchasers who "benefit" from a trafficking venture | § 1591(a)(2) applies to purchasers when their conduct meets the statute’s terms |
| Whether “anything of value” in § 1591(a)(2) gives fair notice that sex acts, photos, videos can be covered | Receiving sex/photographs is not a recognized “thing of value” under the statute; ambiguity violates Due Process | “Anything of value” is broad, long-settled phrase of art encompassing tangibles/intangibles including sexual acts and media | “Anything of value” includes sexual acts, photos, videos; statute gave Cook adequate notice |
| Whether applying § 1591(a)(2) to purchasers is unconstitutionally vague for enforcement | Late or selective enforcement shows standardless, arbitrary application | Plain statutory language and existing case law supply minimal guidelines; Lanier limits retroactivity concerns | Application does not encourage arbitrary enforcement; not unconstitutionally vague as applied |
| Whether Cook’s conduct falls within § 1591 liability (attempt/aiding and abetting) | N/A (focus on vagueness as applied to purchaser) | Cook’s communications, travel, participation, and exchanges of materials satisfy aiding/attempt theories | Court did not need to resolve other § 1591(a)(1)/§ 2 vagueness claims because (a)(2) sufficed to sustain conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Birbragher, 603 F.3d 478 (8th Cir. 2010) (vagueness analysis and as-applied review precedent)
- United States v. Jungers, 702 F.3d 1066 (8th Cir. 2013) (§ 1591 applies to purchasers who violate the statute)
- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) (void-for-vagueness standards and two-prong test)
- United States v. Washam, 312 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2002) (Fifth Amendment vagueness framework)
- Knutson v. Brewer, 619 F.2d 747 (8th Cir. 1980) (interpretation of “thing of value” to include sexual acts)
- United States v. Petrovic, 701 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2012) ("thing of value" as term of art encompassing intangibles)
- United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997) (limits on retroactive judicial construction of criminal statutes)
- United States v. Griffin, 482 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2007) (receipt/sharing of files as "thing of value" for sentencing)
- United States v. White, 882 F.2d 250 (7th Cir. 1989) (notice in vagueness challenges: general awareness of criminality can suffice)