United States v. Mcken, 2:23-cr-00377

Defendant Michail McKen was convicted by a jury on two counts of sex trafficking and two counts of interstate prostitution, relating to victims Amanda and Ella, following a six-day trial.
The counts against McKen involved conducting sex trafficking and prostitution across state lines, often using coercion, threats, and control over victims who had histories of addiction or vulnerability.
The prosecution presented substantial evidence that McKen used violence, threats (including with firearms), and control over money, drugs, and victims' movements to coerce sex work.
McKen moved for acquittal under Rule 29 or, alternatively, for a new trial under Rule 33, arguing in part that the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of uncharged firearm possession and that the evidence of coercion was insufficient.
The court focused on the sufficiency of evidence for convictions related to Amanda and Ella, as these were the subject of the verdict and the motion.

Issue	McKen's Argument	Govt's Argument	Held
Admissibility of uncharged firearm evidence	Evidence irrelevant, improperly admitted under Rule 404(b), and unfairly prejudicial.	Firearm evidence is relevant to coercive scheme, permissible other acts evidence, and not unfairly prejudicial.	Evidence admissible.
Sufficiency of evidence of coercion (sex trafficking)	Withholding drugs alone is not coercion; complainants acted voluntarily for financial motives.	McKen exploited victims’ vulnerabilities (addiction, finances), used threats and violence to coerce commercial sex acts.	Evidence sufficient; convictions upheld.
Whether prior acts evidence was propensity or plan proof	Firearm evidence was offered to show bad character and criminal propensity.	Firearm access demonstrated coercive plan, not just bad character.	Evidence was proper to show plan/coercion.
Whether prejudice outweighed probative value (Rule 403)	Gun evidence created unfair prejudice, jury could rely on victim testimony instead.	Probative value high, corroborated victim accounts, prejudice low due to context and sanitization.	No substantial unfair prejudice found.

United States v. Martoma, 894 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2017) (sets standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence—extremely deferential to jury verdicts)
United States v. Purcell, 967 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2020) (defines when a defendant’s behavior is coercive under sex trafficking law)
United States v. Anderson, 747 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2014) (evidence must be considered in totality, not in isolation, for sufficiency challenges)
United States v. Rivera, 799 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2015) (past engagement in prostitution does not negate finding of coercion by threats or violence)