United States v. Mi Sun Cho
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7666
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Cho, with extensive sex-trafficking contacts, operated and coordinated prostitution placements for brothels.
- Mei Hua Jin, from Atlantic City, sought work as a prostitute and connected with Cho and a government informant.
- Jin traveled from Atlantic City to New York after being arranged for a Manhattan brothel job; Cho and the CI met Jin en route.
- The group transported Jin toward a Manhattan brothel; Jin was rejected for being too old and returned to Flushing.
- A three-count superseding indictment charged Cho with transporting Jin and related conduct; Cho was convicted on all counts after a five-day trial.
- The district court applied a four-level leadership enhancement and sentenced Cho to 70 months’ imprisonment plus supervised release and a special assessment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for transportation under § 2421 | Cho transported or caused transportation of Jin in interstate commerce. | Cho did not personally arrange or pay for Jin's travel; she did not arrange interstate transportation. | Sufficient evidence supported transportation via prearrangement and intrastate leg by Cho or her agent. |
| Due process and admissibility of evidence about Jin's consent | Evidence of Jin's consent was relevant to show intent and defense. | Consent evidence should be admissible to support Cho's defense. | District court properly excluded consent evidence; no due process violation. |
| Applicability of the four-level leadership enhancement | Cho led a substantial criminal enterprise with multiple participants. | Leadership enhancement was inappropriate or overbroad for this conspiracy. | District court properly applied the four-level leadership enhancement. |
| Sentence reasonableness | 70-month term is reasonable given the conspiracy's extent. | Sentence is substantively unreasonable and overstates fault. | 70-month sentence was not substantively unreasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Holland, 381 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2004) (transportation across interstate boundaries may be established by arranging or coordinating intrastate travel as continuation)
- United States v. Ordner, 554 F.2d 24 (2d Cir. 1977) (guilt of intermediary under § 2(b) is irrelevant to the defendant's liability)
- United States v. Clemones, 577 F.2d 1247 (5th Cir. 1978) (prearrangement plus transportation to be sufficient for § 2421)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sufficiency review asks whether any rational trier could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review requires procedural and substantive checks of sentencing)
- Rigas v. United States, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness as a backstop for the abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Cavera v. United States, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard in sentencing)
- Hertular, 562 F.3d 433 (2d Cir. 2009) (preponderance standard for factual findings in sentencing guidelines)