United States v. Deion Lockhart
844 F.3d 501
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Between May 2012 and March 2013 four defendants (members of the Folk Nation gang) prostituted multiple underage girls by advertising on Backpage, renting hotels, transporting victims (sometimes across state lines), and pooling proceeds. Victims testified they were coerced and forced to turn over money.
- FBI investigation used Backpage ads, hotel receipts, phone/email/Facebook records; some coconspirators pleaded guilty and testified for the government.
- At trial the court admitted a gang-unit officer as an expert on Folk Nation and excluded evidence of the victims’ prior and subsequent prostitution under Fed. R. Evid. 412.
- Jury convicted defendants on various counts: sex trafficking by force/fraud/coercion, sex trafficking of children (18 U.S.C. §1591), conspiracy, and transportation for prostitution; several Rule 29 motions were denied.
- On appeal the panel affirmed all convictions except it vacated and remanded McCullouch’s §1591 conviction because the jury instruction included §1591(c) (reasonable opportunity to observe) not alleged in the indictment, thereby constructively amending it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence / denial of Rule 29 | Govt: record (victim/cooperator testimony + electronic/hotel evidence) suffices for convictions | Defendants: evidence insufficient | Affirmed — evidence, viewed favorably to verdict, was sufficient |
| Exclusion of victims’ prior/post-indictment prostitution (Rule 412) | Defendants: exclusion violated Due Process and Confrontation rights | Govt: Rule 412 applies; prior/subsequent prostitution irrelevant to elements and other impeachment avenues existed | Affirmed — Rule 412 applies; exclusion did not violate Fifth or Sixth Amendments |
| Admission of gang-affiliation expert and gang evidence (Rule 404(b)) | Defendants: expert testimony based on hearsay; expert unqualified; gang evidence irrelevant/other-bad-acts | Govt: expert relied on permissible bases; gang membership was intrinsic to conspiracy | Affirmed — expert admissible; gang evidence intrinsic to conspiracy and not unfairly prejudicial |
| Motion to sever (E. Lockhart) | E. Lockhart: joinder prejudiced his specific rights | Govt: joint trial appropriate given common scheme and timing | Affirmed — no showing of requisite prejudice to warrant severance |
| Application of U.S.S.G. §1B1.2 to conspiracy sentencing (E. Lockhart) | E. Lockhart: sentencing required specification of which object offense supported conspiracy | Govt: record permits implicit findings as to object offenses | Affirmed — implicit findings supported application of §1B1.2 |
| Constructive amendment re: §1591 jury instruction (McCullouch) | McCullouch: jury was instructed on §1591(c) (reasonable opportunity to observe) though indictment charged knowledge/reckless disregard only | Govt: §1591(c) is an alternate scienter route | Vacated/remanded — instruction allowed conviction on an essential theory not alleged in indictment (constructive amendment) |
| Sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2A3.1 for use of force (Gray) | Gray: PSR facts erroneous; enhancement improper | Govt: record/PSR document repeated violent beatings causing fear and compliance | Affirmed — district court properly applied 4-level enhancement; sentence reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (indictment cannot be constructively amended by permitting conviction on uncharged factual theory)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial hearsay and Confrontation Clause principles)
- Scheffer v. United States, 523 U.S. 303 (limitations on cross-examination under evidentiary rules do not necessarily violate Confrontation Clause)
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (standards for severance of defendants)
- United States v. Chambers, 408 F.3d 237 (constructive amendment analysis and vacatur where proof deviates from indictment’s particulars)
- United States v. Partida, 385 F.3d 546 (instructions permitting conviction on uncharged alternative can amount to constructive amendment)
- United States v. Copeland, 820 F.3d 809 (statutory scienter as essential element under §1591)
- United States v. Phea, 755 F.3d 255 (reckless-disregard theory may apply absent personal observation in some contexts)