United States v. Kevin Fuertes
805 F.3d 485
4th Cir.2015Background
- Fuertes and Ventura operated interstate prostitution enterprises and were tried for conspiracy, transportation, sex trafficking, and firearm offenses over a two-week trial.
- Ventura ran brothels in Maryland and Virginia; Fuertes assisted and helped intimidate rivals.
- Evidence showed Violence and threats against competitors were used to control the sex-trade network and further the conspiracy.
- Duenas, a key witness, was coerced and abused by Ventura; her injuries were examined by Dr. Baker.
- Ventura was convicted on multiple counts including a § 924(c) firearm charge tied to sex trafficking; Fuertes was convicted on counts one and six partially.
- The district court admitted various evidence and issued jury instructions later challenged on appeal; the court vacated and remanded Count Seven as to Ventura.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 404(b) admissibility of violent acts | Fuertes/Ventura argue bad-acts evidence was unfairly prejudicial | Evidence is improper to prove character only | Admissible for motive/intent under Rule 404(b) and not abused |
| Dr. Baker's expert testimony | Dr. Baker provided admissible expert medical testimony | Her training/experience improperly focused on credibility | District court did not abuse discretion; testimony admissible |
| § 924(c) force clause applicability to § 1591 | Sex trafficking qualifies as a crime of violence under force clause | Not categorically a crime of violence; error in instruction | Plain error; sex trafficking not categorically a force-clause crime; vacate count and remand for acquittal/resentencing |
| Sufficiency of Count Six (coercion) | Evidence shows Fuertes knew/recklessly disregarded coercion of Duenas | Insufficient for knowledge of coercion | Sufficient evidence; denial of acquittal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Byers, 649 F.3d 197 (4th Cir. 2011) ( Rule 404(b) admissibility framework)
- United States v. Basham, 561 F.3d 302 (4th Cir. 2009) ( 404(b) purposes; probative value vs prejudice)
- United States v. Young, 248 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 2001) ( inclusive 404(b) standard; admissibility scope)
- United States v. Rooks, 596 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2010) ( 404(b) reliability and relevance)
- United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991 (4th Cir. 1997) ( 404(b) probative value vs prejudice)