United States v. Justin Cephus
684 F.3d 703
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Cephus defendants ran a sex-trafficking ring in the Midwest, coercing underage and adult women into prostitution and transporting them across state lines; one defendant (Stanton Cephus) aided the scheme but did not personally beat victims; electronic and physical coercion were central to the conspiracy; evidence showed repeated violence to enforce compliance; the jury convicted all three defendants on all counts and imposed lengthy sentences including life without parole for the ringleader and for Stewart; the district court faced ambiguities in Stewart’s sentence and there were ongoing challenges to the charging structure and evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counts were duplicitous and the waiver/plain-error standard applies | Cephus argues duplicity affected notice and verdict. | Defendants waived any duplicity issue; no plain error presumed. | Counts not duplicitous; no plain-error; affirmed on this point. |
| Sufficiency of evidence against Stanton Cephus | Stanton’s role was minor and not part of the conspiracy. | Stanton participated in driving victims and collecting money within the conspiracy. | Sufficient evidence; Pinkerton liability established for conspiracy participants. |
| Effect of leading questions and prosecutor conduct on trial | Prosecutor’s leading questions biased the jury. | Some leading questions improper; judge sustained objections. | Harmless error; overwhelming evidence supported guilt. |
| Admissibility of Rule 412 evidence and related cross-examination | Defense could cross-examine to show coercion and lack of deceit over minor victims. | 412 excludes sexual-behavior evidence; cross-exam should be barred. | 412 exception not triggered as asserted; evidence admissible and cross-examination irrelevant to coercion. |
| Remand for Stewart’s sentence due to oral-written ambiguity and constitutionality of life sentences | Oral sentence ambiguity could affect total term; life sentences for non-juvenile may raise Eighth Amendment concerns. | Written judgment contradicts oral sentence; Bluebook Rule protections require clarification; no automatic invalidation of life terms. | Remand to reconcile oral and written sentences; life-without-parole issues discussed but not overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hassebrock, 663 F.3d 906 (7th Cir. 2011) (duplicitous-indictment concerns and influence on verdicts)
- United States v. Pungitore, 910 F.2d 1084 (3d Cir. 1990) (duplicitous counts and multiple offenses in a single count)
- United States v. Blandford, 33 F.3d 685 (6th Cir. 1994) (concerns about duplicity and multiple offenses)
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 645 (1946) (agency liability for conspiracy—co-conspirator acts within scope)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (life sentence for non-murder crime; Eighth Amendment considerations)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (juvenile life without parole restrictions; separation of Harmelin principles)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2469 (2012) (juvenile sentencing limits; confirms need for individualized sentencing)