United States v. Carl Campbell
764 F.3d 880
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- In 2011 Alesch left Campbell in a Chicago hotel, told police he had coerced her into prostitution, and gave her hotel room information; police arrested Campbell and seized laptops, phones, and IDs from the room.
- DHS Special Agent Aramayo obtained custody of the evidence and a magistrate issued a search warrant (warrant incorporated an Attachment listing sealed evidence bags and device types).
- Federal charges included sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion (adult victim Alesch), interstate transportation for prostitution, two counts of sex trafficking of minors (N.K. and L.O.), and obstruction based on letters Campbell sent to Alesch while jailed. Campbell was convicted on all five counts.
- District court admitted: (1) multiple assault incidents against Alesch as intrinsic/res gestae evidence of a coercive pattern; (2) testimony by J.R. about similar assaults under FRE 404(b) to show intent/absence of mistake; (3) photographs of injuries, hotel receipts, and certain law-enforcement testimony (some hearsay issues were deemed harmless).
- Sentencing produced concurrent terms: three life sentences and two 20-year sentences. Campbell appealed suppression denial, several evidentiary rulings, ineffective assistance claims, and sentencing arguments (double counting/due process). The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to suppress — particularity of warrant | Warrant failed to particularly describe items to be searched | Attachment A + incorporation satisfied particularity | Warrant and Attachment read together met Fourth Amendment particularity; suppression denied |
| Admission of other-acts (Alesch assaults) as intrinsic evidence | Assaults not directly tied to prostitution, therefore irrelevant/prejudicial | Assaults formed part of a coercive pattern (res gestae) relevant to §1591 coercion element | Admitting assaults as intrinsic evidence was within discretion; probative of coercion |
| Admission of J.R. testimony under FRE 404(b) | Testimony only showed propensity to violence and was unfairly prejudicial | Testimony rebutted defense (romantic-relationship explanation) and showed intent/plan/absence of mistake | 404(b) admission proper: similarities and relevance supported admission; limiting instruction given |
| Hearsay from Officer Giuliano | Officer repeated Alesch’s out-of-court statements (improper hearsay) | Testimony explained officer’s actions and investigation | Some testimony was hearsay and lacked limiting instruction but was cumulative of Alesch’s direct testimony; error harmless |
| Cross-examination limits and other confrontation claims | Exclusion of cross-examination (e.g., N.K., impeachment theory) violated confrontation/right to present defense | Evidence irrelevant or legally barred (e.g., minors under Rule 412); arguments not preserved | Exclusions proper where evidence irrelevant or barred; preserved claims rejected |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Trial counsel misapplied law and turned over letters to government | (District court record incomplete; appellate counsel same as trial counsel) | Court declines to resolve on direct appeal; directs post-conviction proceedings to develop record |
| Sentencing — double jeopardy and use of uncharged conduct | Double counting: obstruction sentence + guideline enhancement based on same letters; Sixth Amendment violation by using uncharged victim conduct | Sentencing grouped offenses per USSG §§3D1.2(c) and 3C1.1; grouping and concurrent sentences avoid double-counting; judicial factfinding permissible if within statutory maximum | No double jeopardy violation; use of uncharged conduct at sentencing did not violate Sixth Amendment given convictions and that sentence did not exceed statutory maximum |
Key Cases Cited
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004) (warrant may be construed with incorporated supporting affidavit when appropriate)
- United States v. Riesselman, 646 F.3d 1072 (8th Cir. 2011) (warrant particularity and incorporation)
- United States v. Johnson, 463 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 2006) (res gestae/intrinsic evidence doctrine)
- United States v. Luna, 94 F.3d 1156 (8th Cir. 1996) (intrinsic evidence when incidents are blended or connected)
- United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2011) (grouping offenses and avoiding double-counting under USSG)
- United States v. Elbert, 561 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2009) (limits on relevance and Confrontation Clause where victim is a minor)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (sentencing and the limits on judicial factfinding that increase sentences beyond statutory maximum)