United States v. Love
2:13-cr-00306-TLN-JDP
E.D. Cal.Oct 9, 2015Background
- Defendant Percy Love, III was convicted by jury on all five counts of a superseding indictment charging sex trafficking (Counts 1–4) and attempted sex trafficking of a minor (Count 5); he represented himself at trial with standby counsel.
- Counts 1–4: victims K.L., F.W., T.V., and L.C. testified; evidence included victim testimony, photos of injuries, text messages showing control and money collection, corroborating witness R.C., and Defendant’s own admissions of physical abuse and taking prostitution proceeds. Count 3 alleged trafficking of a minor (T.V.).
- Count 5: Government introduced recorded phone calls between Defendant and underage victim L.B., made while L.B. worked with law enforcement; L.B. did not testify at trial and her recorded statements were played for the jury.
- Defendant moved for judgment of acquittal and a new trial on multiple grounds: insufficiency of evidence (Counts 1–4), Confrontation Clause violation and hearsay (Count 5), double jeopardy, redacted witness rap sheets (Brady/Giglio issue), ineffective assistance by standby counsel, improper jury instructions (unanimity on means), and juror composition/Batson concerns.
- The court denied renewed judgment of acquittal and a new trial as to Counts 1–4, but granted a new trial on Count 5 because L.B.’s recorded testimonial statements were admitted without opportunity for confrontation and the jury received no limiting instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Counts 1–4 | Government: testimony, texts, photos, corroboration, and Defendant admissions support convictions | Love: challenged context/chronology and claimed alibi for some periods (incarceration) | Denied: evidence was sufficient; reasonable juror could convict |
| Confrontation Clause (Count 5) | Government: recordings admitted mainly for Defendant’s admissions; L.B.’s words were context, not offered for truth | Love: L.B.’s recorded statements were testimonial, she was unavailable, and he had no opportunity to cross-examine | Granted new trial on Count 5: L.B.’s statements were testimonial and likely relied upon for truth without cross-examination or limiting instruction |
| Double jeopardy as to Count 4 | Government: prior state conviction for corporal injury is different offense and elements | Love: argues prior state conviction bars federal prosecution for same conduct | Denied: offenses require different elements; no double jeopardy shown |
| Redacted rap sheets / Brady/Giglio | Government: redacted to protect victim privacy; provided other identifiers and reports | Love: redactions impeded impeachment using criminal histories | Denied: court finds no materiality shown and defendant extensively cross-examined victims; no reasonable likelihood the verdict would change |
| Ineffective assistance of standby counsel | (n/a) Government: standby counsel adequately assisted; Faretta waiver controls | Love: standby counsel ineffective | Denied: Faretta bars later complaint about counsel quality; no exception shown |
| Jury instructions/unanimity on means (force/fraud/coercion) | Government: general verdicts permitted; unanimity on single means not required | Love: jury should have been required to unanimously agree on the means | Denied: court followed precedent allowing jurors to convict on different means without unanimity |
| Jury composition / Batson challenge | Government: no peremptory discrimination shown; most African-American jurors removed for cause without Batson issue | Love: claims racial and gender composition prejudiced him | Denied (implicitly): no prima facie showing of discrimination and no specific fair-cross-section claim proven |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dior, 671 F.2d 351 (9th Cir. 1982) (standard for Rule 29 sufficiency review)
- United States v. Rojas, 554 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1977) (evidence viewed in light most favorable to government on acquittal motions)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (rational juror standard for sufficiency)
- United States v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2000) (district court’s broader power on Rule 33 new-trial motions)
- United States v. Rush, 749 F.2d 1369 (9th Cir. 1984) (new trial should be granted only in exceptional cases)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements and Confrontation Clause rule)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (distinguishing testimonial hearsay)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (prosecution’s burden to produce witnesses for confrontation)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (impeachment evidence and materiality standard)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self-representation)
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (1991) (no unanimity requirement on jury agreement as to means/theory)