United States v. Jermaine Roy, 781 F.3d 416

Background

Defendant Jermaine Lamon Roy was convicted by a jury of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion under 18 U.S.C. § 1591 after a victim (a prostitute) testified Roy controlled her earnings, beat and threatened her, and posted ads for her on Backpage.com.
Police observed bruises/marks on the victim; witnesses testified the victim had a learning disability and difficulty with reading/comprehension.
At trial Roy attempted to introduce (1) an explicit videotape of the victim performing oral sex on him and (2) evidence that the victim engaged in prostitution before and after the time charged, arguing both tended to show she was willing/experienced and thus not coerced.
The district court permitted cross-examination about the tape but excluded playing it under Fed. R. Evid. 403; it excluded evidence of the victim’s sexual history under Fed. R. Evid. 412 and for untimeliness (no 14-day pretrial notice).
After conviction Roy moved for a new trial, also alleging a Brady violation because the government did not disclose that the victim previously gave a false statement to Arkansas police in an unrelated murder matter (publicly reported in Beasley v. State).
The district court denied the motion; the Eighth Circuit affirmed the evidentiary rulings and held no Brady violation occurred.

Issues

Issue	Roy's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Admissibility of explicit videotape (Rule 403)	Video shows victim acted voluntarily and arranged prostitution, so probative of no coercion	Video cumulative to testimony and highly prejudicial; cross-examination sufficed	Court affirmed exclusion under Rule 403; cross-examination allowed and tape was more prejudicial than probative
Admission of victim’s prior/subsequent prostitution (Rule 412 & notice)	Past/future prostitution shows willingness/experience and negates need for coercion; invokes right to present a defense	Rule 412 bars proving sexual history; defendant failed to give timely 14‑day notice; minimal probative value, high prejudice	Court upheld exclusion under Rule 412 and for untimely notice; no constitutional violation in excluding the evidence
Confrontation/Due Process claim based on exclusion of sexual-history evidence	Exclusion infringed confrontation and due-process rights to present a full defense	Unchastity is irrelevant to credibility; limited impeachment value; trial court offered alternative routes to show motive	Court held exclusion did not violate Confrontation Clause or due process; probative value too low relative to prejudice
Brady claim re: victim’s prior false statement (Beasley)	Failure to disclose victim’s prior lie to police was favorable and material impeachment evidence	The false-statement record was publicly available and prosecutors did not know of it; government did not suppress known evidence	No Brady violation: evidence was public record and government lacked knowledge; no reasonable probability of a different result

Key Cases Cited

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (prosecutor must disclose impeachment evidence regarding witnesses)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor’s suppression of favorable, material evidence violates due process)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (defense must show reasonable probability that undisclosed evidence would have changed the outcome)
United States v. Elbert, 561 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2009) (limits on using victim’s sexual history; relevance and prejudice analysis)
United States v. Cephus, 684 F.3d 703 (7th Cir. 2012) (prior prostitution generally irrelevant to showing absence of force/coercion)
United States v. Condon, 720 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2013) (deference to district court Rule 403 exclusions where exclusion does not unfairly prevent proof)
United States v. Santisteban, 501 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 2007) (no Brady violation where defendant had access to the same evidence by other channels)
United States v. Heppner, 519 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard for proving government suppression and materiality under Brady)