United States v. Darrius Redd, 81 F.4th 822

Background

Darrius Redd was convicted by a jury of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion (18 U.S.C. § 1591), facilitating prostitution, and distributing MDMA to a person under 21; sentenced to 45 years.
Victim A.E. met Redd at a gas station (Feb 2, 2020); Redd gave her MDMA and later met her at her sorority house (Mar 3), where he recorded explicit sexual encounters.
In March 2020 Redd arranged prostitution appointments, drove A.E. to clients, collected proceeds, threatened her with release of recordings, and forced sexual acts including assaultive conduct.
Redd testified the relationships and prostitution were consensual and denied giving A.E. drugs or extorting her; the jury rejected that defense.
On appeal Redd challenged: (1) the district court’s pretrial exclusion of the sorority-house videos (Rules 401, 402, 403, 412 and constitutional claims); (2) admission of an expert on sex trafficking (Rule 702/403); (3) prosecutorial cross-examination tactics; and (4) portions of the government’s closing argument.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Redd)	Defendant's Argument (Gov't)	Held
Exclusion of sorority-house videos (Rules 401–403, 412; Confrontation/Due Process)	Videos were necessary to show consensual relationship, A.E.’s sexual preferences, and consent to prostitution; exclusion deprived defense.	Videos were either barred by Rule 412 or, even if marginally relevant, were highly inflammatory and their probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Rule 403.	Affirmed. Court found Rule 412/403 rulings not an abuse; constitutional claims fail because probative value minimal and prejudice high.
Admission of expert testimony (Rule 702; Rule 403)	Expert testimony merely mirrored case facts and was unduly prejudicial, presenting victim traits as typical of trafficking victims.	Expert (FBI agent) had specialized experience explaining terminology, victim reactions, and trafficking methods; testimony assisted jurors and was not unfairly prejudicial.	Affirmed. Court held admission was within district court’s discretion and not reversibly prejudicial.
Cross-examination tactics (asking whether defendant “heard” contradictory testimony)	Government’s repeated were-they-lying questioning forced Redd to accuse witnesses of lying and amounted to prosecutorial misconduct depriving him of a fair trial.	Questions sought to impeach or highlight inconsistencies; no contemporaneous objection; no controlling precedent requiring sua sponte intervention.	Affirmed. Reviewed for plain error; no clear plain error and no showing of prejudice to warrant reversal.
Closing argument (appeal to protect community/deter future crimes)	Prosecutor improperly urged jurors to convict to stop defendant’s conduct and protect community.	Closing recounted victims and trial evidence, urged jury to decide based on evidence; not an appeal solely to community protection.	Affirmed. Under plain-error review, comments were tied to trial evidence and did not warrant reversal.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Schave, 55 F.4th 671 (8th Cir. 2022) (deference to district court Rule 403 probative-prejudice balancing)
United States v. Walker, 917 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir. 2019) (de novo review when constitutional rights implicated in evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Roy, 781 F.3d 416 (8th Cir. 2015) (excluding explicit sexual video where testimony described contents and video was more prejudicial than probative)
United States v. Pumpkin Seed, 572 F.3d 552 (8th Cir. 2009) (great deference to district court’s Rule 403 balancing)
United States v. Zephier, 989 F.3d 629 (8th Cir. 2021) (limits on excluding defense evidence presenting alternative explanations)
United States v. Merrell, 842 F.3d 577 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard for evaluating improperly admitted expert testimony)
United States v. Geddes, 844 F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 2017) (permitting task-force expert testimony on trafficking operations)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review standard)