United States v. Jackson
2:16-cr-00054
| D.S.C. | May 31, 2017Background
- Defendants Damon Jackson, Bakari McMillan, and Corey Miller indicted for conspiracy to sex‑traffic minors and adults via force, fraud, and coercion, using Backpage and Facebook and drug dependency to control victims.
- Government sought to present FBI Special Agent James E. Hardie as an expert on the prostitution/pimp subculture, sex‑trafficking organization operations, recruitment and control techniques, venues, online facilitation, and victimology.
- Government stated Hardie would testify in general terms and would not link his expert opinions directly to facts of the charged acts.
- Jackson moved in limine to exclude Hardie under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert, arguing Hardie lacked qualifications and used unreliable methodology; the hearing included testimony from Hardie.
- The court reviewed Hardie’s education, training, supervisory and investigative experience (FBI since 2001, coordinator of child sex‑trafficking task force, liaison roles, training presentations, deployments to major events) and prior courts’ admissions of Hardie as an expert.
- Court denied Jackson’s motion, finding Hardie qualified and his testimony sufficiently reliable and relevant; many objections went to weight, not admissibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualification of expert | Gov: Hardie is an experienced FBI agent with task‑force leadership, investigations, training, and teaching experience supporting expertise | Jackson: Hardie lacks advanced degrees/publications and limited specialized methodology | Court: Qualified — Rule 702 permits experience/training as basis for expertise; prior courts admitted Hardie |
| Reliability and admissibility under Daubert | Gov: Hardie’s testimony derives from investigative experience and training; will aid jury understanding | Jackson: Testimony is speculative, vocational (not scientific), and could be explained by lay witnesses; methodology unreliable | Court: Reliable and relevant — vocational experience allowed; Daubert objections go to weight, not exclusion |
| Connection to facts of the case / Relevance | Gov: Expert will give general background, not case‑specific linkage | Jackson: Absence of case‑specific application undermines relevance and risks prejudice | Court: Background/context testimony is relevant to help jury understand pimp‑prostitute relationships; permitted since it aids factfinding |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court gatekeeping for expert reliability and relevance)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to non‑scientific expert testimony)
- Kopf v. Skyrm, 993 F.2d 374 (4th Cir. 1993) (liberal standard for expert qualifications under Rule 702)
- United States v. Willoughby, 742 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2014) (upholding admission of Hardie as sex‑trafficking expert)
- United States v. Smith, 520 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2008) (experience can qualify an expert absent formal credentials)
- United States v. Freeman, 498 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2007) (admitting police officer as expert on drug jargon based on experience)
- United States v. Evans, 272 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2001) (expert testimony on prostitution ring operations admissible)
- United States v. Anderson, 851 F.2d 384 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (expert testimony on pimp‑prostitute relationship admissible)
- United States v. Anderson, 560 F.3d 275 (5th Cir. 2009) (expert testimony on pimp behavior upheld)
- United States v. Geddes, 844 F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 2017) (expert testimony on operation of sex‑trafficking rings affirmed)
- United States v. Taylor, 239 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2001) (recognizing that pimp‑prostitute relationships are not common knowledge)