United States v. Rita Law
990 F.3d 1058
7th Cir.2021Background
- Rita Law owned three Indiana massage spas that also provided paid sexual services; HV and XC were workers she recruited from abroad and controlled.
- HV came from Vietnam after a sham engagement arranged by Law; XC came from China expecting nonsexual work; both had limited English and few contacts on arrival.
- Law coerced them into sex work by confiscating passports, claiming immigration/debt threats, withholding wages, monitoring via cameras, restricting movement, and using intimidation; HV worked while pregnant and suffered a miscarriage yet was forced back to work.
- Local and federal agents investigated after XC was arrested in a sting and HV was found hiding; agents testified about out-of-court statements during the investigation and Law’s affidavit was admitted at trial despite authentication challenge.
- A jury convicted Law on four counts (trafficking for involuntary servitude as to HV and XC; transporting XC for prostitution; using an interstate facility to promote prostitution); she was sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment (below the Guidelines range).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Law) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of agents’ testimony about out-of-court statements | Testimony was admissible non‑hearsay to show the course/effect of the investigation, not for truth | Testimony was impermissible hearsay and prejudicial | Admission not an abuse of discretion; limiting instructions and corroboration made any error harmless |
| Authentication/admission of Law’s affidavit | Document could be authenticated by distinctive contents and circumstances under Rule 901 | Affidavit lacked foundation because no one saw Law sign it | No plain error: Rule 901(b)(4) authentication sufficient; affidavit admissible |
| Sufficiency of evidence for forced-labor trafficking (18 U.S.C. § 1589) | Evidence showed coercion by immigration, financial, and psychological threats amounting to "serious harm" | Law argued there was no evidence of threats of serious harm | Evidence sufficient; passport confiscation, threats, wage withholding, surveillance, and conduct surrounding miscarriage supported conviction |
| Sentencing calculations and reasonableness (Guidelines cross-references and obstruction enhancement) | Cross-references and §3C1.1 enhancement were proper given transporting for prostitution, causing fear/coercion, and perjurious affidavit/attempted coercion of XC in jail; sentence reasonable | Law disputed applicability of cross-references and obstruction enhancement and argued substantive unreasonableness | Court correctly applied cross-references and obstruction enhancement; 360-month below-Guidelines sentence was reasonable and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Torry v. City of Chicago, 932 F.3d 579 (7th Cir. 2019) (out‑of‑court statements admissible when offered for effect on listener, not truth)
- United States v. Taylor, 569 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2009) (statements may be nonhearsay to establish course of investigation)
- United States v. Silva, 380 F.3d 1018 (7th Cir. 2004) (course‑of‑investigation rationale cannot be a subterfuge for admitting otherwise inadmissible hearsay)
- United States v. Marchan, 935 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 2019) (harmlessness where contested statements were cumulative of witness testimony)
- United States v. Calimlim, 538 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 2008) (passport confiscation and immigration threats can constitute "serious harm" under forced labor statute)
- United States v. Guidry, 817 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for Guidelines application and factual findings)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district court has discretion under § 3553(a); appellate review of substantive reasonableness)