73 F.4th 915
11th Cir.2023Background
- Walker (a pimp) transported three women from Connecticut to Miami ahead of Super Bowl LIV; convicted of: Count 1 (sex trafficking of adult Juanita Barr by coercion), Count 2 (sex trafficking of A.H. — a minor — alternatively by coercion), and Count 3 (transporting Simone King); Counts 1 and 2 are challenged on appeal.
- A.H. (met Walker at 15) lived in a romantic/sexual relationship with Walker, worked as his “bottom,” recruited others, and exchanged texts showing Walker directing prostitution; government also presented FBI Special Agent Loff as an expert on pimping/coercion.
- Barr was befriended/recruited via A.H., invited to Miami under promises expenses would be covered, became stranded with little money, saw food rationing and extensions of the Miami stay, was advertised online without writing the ad, and took a hotel “date” (undercover officer) to raise money to get home.
- Pretrial: court ordered the gov’t to amend its Rule 16(a)(1)(G) expert notice; gov’t filed an amended notice including Loff’s CV and opinions; Walker did not renew a Rule 16 objection at trial and only objected once that expert testimony invaded the jury’s province.
- On appeal the Eleventh Circuit reviewed (1) sufficiency of coercion evidence as to Barr (preserved) and (2) alleged Rule 16 notice error and resulting prejudice as to A.H.’s coercion theory (not preserved — plain-error review); both convictions affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Walker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Walker coerced Barr under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(e)(2) | Evidence showed a scheme/plan to profit from prostitution, misleading statements about travel/home options, food/expense control, posting ads, directing dates, and Barr’s subjective belief she had to do sex work to get home | Barr voluntarily agreed to a date to buy a train ticket after "stopping having fun" — insufficient proof of coercion | Affirmed: viewing evidence in gov’t favor, a reasonable jury could find coercion beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Adequacy of gov’t Rule 16 expert notice and prejudice from Special Agent Loff’s testimony (romantic-relationship grooming/coercion) as to A.H. | Amended notice provided Loff’s CV and summary; defense anticipated this line of testimony at motions in limine; ample independent evidence of coercion (A.H.’s age, relationship, texts, role as bottom) | Notice was insufficient and the expert testimony about romantic grooming was critical and prejudicial because Walker lacked opportunity to rebut | Plain-error review (claim forfeited); even if notice imperfect, Walker not prejudiced — he anticipated testimony and other strong evidence supported coercion; conviction on coercion theory affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bichsel, 156 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 1998) (preservation of sufficiency challenges via Rule 29 motion)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 218 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2000) (standard for reviewing denial of judgment of acquittal)
- United States v. Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2009) (view evidence in the light most favorable to the government on sufficiency review)
- United States v. Toll, 804 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2015) (defendant’s reasonable hypothesis of innocence insufficient to overturn a verdict)
- United States v. Ramirez-Flores, 743 F.3d 816 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining plain-error standard on appellate review)
- United States v. Straub, 508 F.3d 1003 (11th Cir. 2007) (requirements for timely, specific objections to preserve issues for appeal)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (framework for admissibility of expert testimony)