United States v. McKenzie Carson
870 F.3d 584
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- McKenzie Carson was convicted by a jury on four counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1591 for sex trafficking: three counts alleging use of force/threats/coercion and one count for trafficking a minor (Kaitlin Fratto, age 17).
- Victim testimony described repeated rape, beatings, death threats, isolation, confiscation of phones/clothes/money, withholding of drugs, photography for Backpage ads, and threats against family; several victims were drug‑addicted and homeless.
- Government presented a sex‑trafficking expert to explain grooming, control techniques, and why victims sometimes left and returned; corroborating witnesses (driver Margaret Hurley, broker Christopher Richardson) testified about events and Richardson admitted informing Carson of Fratto’s age.
- Defense sought to introduce victims’ prior prostitution history and additional impeachment material about Richardson (a Springfield episode); the court excluded much of that evidence under Rules 412, 403, and as irrelevant or cumulative.
- Trial court admitted testimony mentioning other women present and similar acts as either direct evidence of the charged enterprise or as non‑propensity 404(b)/modus operandi evidence; jury was instructed on "knowingly" and "reckless disregard" (district court’s wording of reckless was later conceded by government to be imprecise).
- Carson was sentenced to 47 years’ imprisonment (below guideline and government recommendation); he appealed alleging evidentiary and instructional errors and confrontation violations. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Carson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of victims’ prior prostitution (Rule 412/ relevancy) | Evidence of prior prostitution is irrelevant to mens rea; exclusion proper | Prior prostitution shows Carson lacked mens rea (he thought victims were willing) and exclusion violated his right to present a defense | Affirmed: prior prostitution irrelevant to §1591 mens rea and/ or cumulative; exclusion not reversible constitutional error |
| Limits on cross‑examination of Richardson (Confrontation Clause) | Jury learned Richardson’s motives (immunity, felonies, drug history); further questioning would be cumulative/confusing | Bar on questioning about Springfield pimping episode prevented effective impeachment of Richardson’s credibility | Affirmed: Court allowed exposure of motive; additional detail was cumulative and exclusion was within district court’s discretion; no Confrontation Clause violation |
| Admission of testimony referring to other women / prior bad acts (Rule 404(b) / direct evidence / modus operandi) | Testimony about other women was direct evidence of the trafficking enterprise or corroborative modus operandi (control, grooming) and admissible for non‑propensity purposes | Such testimony was unfair propensity evidence and prejudicial | Affirmed: much evidence was direct or admissible for non‑propensity purposes (modus operandi, corroboration); any prejudice did not substantially outweigh probative value |
| Jury instruction on "reckless disregard" mens rea | Instruction error was harmless given evidence of actual knowledge and included "knowingly" instruction; overwhelming evidence supported verdict | Instruction misstated recklessness (omitted "consciously") and lowered mens rea toward negligence, warranting reversal | Affirmed: error forfeited or harmless—overwhelming evidence of actual knowledge and the knowing instruction mitigated risk of conviction on mere negligence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cephus, 684 F.3d 703 (7th Cir. 2012) (prior prostitution evidence irrelevant to §1591 mens rea)
- United States v. Gemma, 818 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2016) (prior prostitution evidence irrelevant or too marginally probative under §1591)
- United States v. Rivera, 799 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2015) (victims’ prior prostitution irrelevant to whether defendants used threats/force to coerce commercial sex)
- United States v. Gomez, 763 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2014) (Rule 404(b) requires a propensity‑free chain of reasoning for other‑acts evidence)
- United States v. Ferrell, 816 F.3d 433 (7th Cir. 2015) (deference to district court on 404(b) admissibility)
- Recendiz v. United States, 557 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2009) (limits on cross‑examination and scope under Confrontation Clause; motive/impeachment principles)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (Confrontation Clause protects opportunity for effective cross‑examination; limits permissible once motive shown)
- United States v. McMillian, 777 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2015) (fraud can force minors into commercial sex; mens rea nuances under §1591)
- United States v. Dobek, 789 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2015) (instructional error harmless when evidence one‑sided/overwhelming)
- United States v. Cardena, 842 F.3d 959 (7th Cir. 2016) (reversal for instructional error requires effect on substantial rights)