United States v. Corley
679 F. App'x 1
2d Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Royce Corley (pro se on appeal) was convicted of three counts of sex trafficking of a minor (18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)) and one count of possession of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B)).
- Government evidence: three minor victims (pseudonyms) testified that Corley recruited, transported, provided apartments, photographed, and posted Backpage ads for them; one victim’s sexually explicit images were found on a thumb drive seized from Corley.
- At trial the government introduced a photograph of one victim, a thumb drive containing images (forensically analyzed), and testimony about Backpage ads and the victims’ interactions with Corley.
- District court excluded cross‑examination about victims’ unrelated prior sexual history under Fed. R. Evid. 412; admitted the photo and the thumb drive over authenticity and prejudice objections.
- Jury was instructed that unanimity was not required as to which statutory means under § 1591(a) was proven and that knowledge of age could be proven by actual knowledge, reckless disregard, or reasonable opportunity to observe (including "face‑to‑face interaction").
- Second Circuit AFFIRMED the convictions, rejecting challenges to evidentiary rulings, jury instructions (any error harmless), and sufficiency of the evidence on interstate commerce, trafficking acts, knowledge of age, possession, venue, and materials‑in‑commerce.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of photo, thumb drive, and exclusion under Rule 412 | Photo and drive were probative; exclusion of unrelated sexual history appropriate under Rule 412 | Photo unfairly prejudicial; thumb drive unauthenticated; should be allowed to cross‑examine victims about prior prostitution | Evidence admission not an abuse of discretion; photo not unduly prejudicial; thumb drive sufficiently authenticated; Rule 412 exclusion proper |
| Jury unanimity as to means under § 1591(a) | Government: (a)(1) and (a)(2) are alternative means; jury need not be unanimous as to which means | Corley: jury must be unanimous about how he violated § 1591(a) | Court: (a)(1) and (a)(2) are alternative means; no unanimity required on which means so long as element proved unanimously |
| Knowledge-of-age instruction (reasonable opportunity to observe / "face‑to‑face") | Government: knowledge can be shown by actual knowledge, recklessness, or reasonable opportunity to observe (Robinson) | Corley: instruction that a face‑to‑face interaction suffices improperly resolved a factual question for the court | Instruction followed Robinson; any possible error harmless because jury found actual knowledge on special verdict |
| Sufficiency of the evidence (interstate commerce, trafficking acts, commercial sex, possession, venue, materials‑in‑commerce) | Government: Backpage ads processed/hosted out of state affected interstate commerce; testimony and physical evidence show recruiting/transporting/maintaining/advertising and possession of thumb drive with images and alias file name | Corley: insufficient proof of affecting interstate commerce, of trafficking acts, of commercial sex act, of possession/venue/materials‑in‑commerce, and lack of knowledge of victims’ ages | Viewing evidence in government’s favor, convictions supported: Backpage evidence affects interstate commerce; ample proof of recruiting/transporting/providing/maintaining and intent that victims be used for commercial sex; thumb drive linked to Corley; venue and materials‑in‑commerce proven; jury credited testimony that victims told Corley their ages |
Key Cases Cited
- Cameron v. City of New York, 598 F.3d 50 (2d Cir.) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Crawford v. Tribeca Lending Corp., 815 F.3d 121 (2d Cir.) (authentication standard under Fed. R. Evid. 901)
- United States v. Gelzer, 50 F.3d 1133 (2d Cir.) (chain‑of‑custody/authentication principles)
- United States v. Kozeny, 667 F.3d 122 (2d Cir.) (standard for reviewing jury instructions)
- United States v. Bahel, 662 F.3d 610 (2d Cir.) (prejudice standard for instructional error)
- United States v. Robinson, 702 F.3d 22 (2d Cir.) (knowledge of victim’s age can be shown by reasonable opportunity to observe)
- United States v. Harvey, 746 F.3d 87 (2d Cir.) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- United States v. Baston, 818 F.3d 651 (11th Cir.) (Backpage/online ads can support interstate commerce nexus)
- United States v. Fuertes, 805 F.3d 485 (4th Cir.) (statutory language as alternative means)
- United States v. Hornbuckle, 784 F.3d 549 (9th Cir.) (§ 1591 requires knowledge that victim will be caused to engage in commercial sex; actual occurrence not required)
- United States v. Garcia‑Gonzalez, 714 F.3d 306 (5th Cir.) (same principle on commercial‑sex requirement)
- United States v. Elbert, 561 F.3d 771 (8th Cir.) (minors cannot consent to prostitution)