United States v. Brandon Jennings
20-4432
| 4th Cir. | Jul 1, 2021Background
- Brandon Jennings was convicted by a jury of multiple offenses including sex trafficking by force/fraud/coercion (Counts 1–2), sex trafficking of minors (Counts 3–4), production of child pornography (Count 5), interstate transportation of a minor for sexual activity (Count 6), interstate travel/transportation for prostitution (Counts 7–12), and promoting an unlawful enterprise (Count 13).
- The district court sentenced Jennings to life imprisonment; he appealed raising three principal challenges: (1) admission of expert testimony by Dr. Sharon Cooper on sex‑trafficking culture/psychology, (2) sufficiency of the evidence that he knew or recklessly disregarded that two victims (R.W. and J.C.) were minors (Counts 3–4), and (3) substantive unreasonableness of his sentence.
- At trial the defense did not object to Cooper’s testimony, so the court reviewed admissibility for plain error on appeal.
- Evidence supporting the minors convictions: R.W.’s Facebook profile indicated she was in high school and Jennings admitted R.W. began prostituting for him at 16; several witnesses said J.C. looked under 18, a john refused her because she looked very young, and J.C. told Jennings she lacked ID and had an 11‑year‑old friend, and could not leave her home with just anyone.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed: it found no plain error in admitting the expert testimony, concluded the evidence was sufficient under §1591 (including §1591(c) on opportunity to observe), and found Jennings’ within‑Guidelines life sentence substantively reasonable.
- The court also denied Jennings’ pro se motions and dispensed with oral argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony on sex‑trafficking culture/psychology | Jennings argued Cooper’s testimony was prejudicial and should be excluded | Government argued testimony aided the jury to understand trafficking dynamics; trial objection was not made (plain‑error review) | Affirmed: no plain error; circuit precedent supports admission when testimony aids jury and is reliable |
| Sufficiency of evidence that victims were minors for §1591 Counts 3–4 | Jennings argued insufficient proof he knew or recklessly disregarded victims’ ages | Government pointed to direct admissions, social‑media evidence, witness observations, and §1591(c) (reasonable opportunity to observe) | Affirmed: substantial evidence supported convictions; §1591(c) applied given defendants’ opportunity to observe minors |
| Substantive reasonableness of life sentence | Jennings argued life sentence was excessive | Government noted Guidelines range, aggravated offense conduct, and Jennings’ allocution undermining mitigation | Affirmed: within‑Guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable and not rebutted on §3553(a) review |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266 (2013) (plain‑error framework for unpreserved errors)
- Rosales‑Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (discretion to correct plain error only when it seriously affects fairness, integrity, or public reputation of proceedings)
- United States v. Bynum, 604 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. 2010) (expert must explain how experience supports opinion and application to facts)
- United States v. Lespier, 725 F.3d 437 (4th Cir. 2013) (exclude expert testimony that is within jurors’ common knowledge)
- United States v. Garcia‑Gonzalez, 714 F.3d 306 (5th Cir. 2013) (elements required to prove a §1591 offense)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentences)
- United States v. Vinson, 852 F.3d 333 (4th Cir. 2017) (presumption of reasonableness for within‑Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2010) (plain‑error review applies where defendant did not object to expert testimony)