924 F.3d 329
7th Cir.2019Background
- In Feb 2015 Cosby recruited and prostituted a 15-year-old minor (T.L.), posting her on Backpage, negotiating prices, and keeping the money; he transported her between Indiana and Illinois for prostitution.
- Police investigated; Cosby’s cell phone was seized from a third party’s apartment pursuant to a state warrant authorizing seizure of the device and passwords.
- Federal indictment charged Cosby with multiple sex-trafficking–related offenses, including Count III: knowingly transporting a minor in interstate commerce with intent that she engage in prostitution (18 U.S.C. § 2423(a)).
- Pretrial litigation included multiple continuance requests (sixth denied), a motion to suppress phone contents (denied), and disputes over expert FBI Agent Landau’s testimony (she initially understated her involvement and was later recalled).
- At trial the jury convicted Cosby on Count III and other counts; he appeals arguing (inter alia) denial of continuance, insufficiency of evidence on Count III, denial of mistrial for false testimony, improper dual-capacity testimony, and erroneous denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of sixth continuance | Cosby: counsel needed more time for forthcoming discovery and preparation | Court: case was trial-ready; counsel had months and previous continuances; victims’ interests weighed against delay | No abuse of discretion; continuance denial affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count III (§ 2423(a)) | Cosby: transport to Indiana lacked intent to prostitute because there was a two-day gap before further prostitution | Govt: contemporaneous texts, pattern of pimp–prostitute relationship, and prostitution before/after transport show intent | Viewing facts in favor of prosecution, evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed |
| Motion for mistrial over Agent Landau’s false or inaccurate testimony | Cosby: agent falsely denied involvement; this infected trial fairness | Govt: agent misremembered; error corrected by recalling agent and cross-examining; not material to verdict | No abuse of discretion; correction and impeachment opportunity cured any prejudice |
| Dual-capacity testimony (expert + fact witness) | Cosby: Landau offered both expert and factual testimony and court failed to mitigate risk | Govt/Court: testimony was expert; any factual overlap was minor and juries were instructed | Plain-error standard fails; even if error, any effect was harmless |
| Motion to suppress phone contents | Cosby: warrant authorized seizure of device but not review of its contents | Govt: state warrant implicitly authorized search of electronic device; Fifer controls | Denial affirmed under binding Seventh Circuit precedent (Fifer) |
Key Cases Cited
- Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (1973) (trial scheduling and counsel’s opportunity to prepare evaluated broadly)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Vang, 128 F.3d 1065 (7th Cir. 1997) (intent to prostitute need only be a dominant or compelling purpose)
- United States v. Berg, 640 F.3d 239 (7th Cir. 2011) (jury may draw reasonable inferences about defendant’s intent)
- United States v. Fifer, 863 F.3d 759 (7th Cir. 2017) (state warrant authorizing seizure of electronic device implicitly authorizes search of its contents)
- United States v. Robbins, 197 F.3d 829 (7th Cir. 1999) (courts should not be myopic about trial scheduling but may deny continuances absent compelling reasons)
- United States v. Volpentesta, 727 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2013) (courts may adhere to set trial dates absent compelling reasons)
- United States v. Shields, 789 F.3d 733 (7th Cir. 2015) (factors relevant to continuance decisions)
- United States v. Crowder, 588 F.3d 929 (7th Cir. 2009) (party seeking continuance must show specific prejudice)
- United States v. Snyder, 865 F.3d 490 (7th Cir. 2017) (appellate sufficiency review looks to evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (prosecution may not obtain conviction by using known false testimony)
- United States v. Coleman, 914 F.3d 508 (7th Cir. 2019) (elements for relief based on perjured testimony)
- United States v. Rebolledo-Delgadillo, 820 F.3d 870 (7th Cir. 2016) (correcting known false testimony can cure prejudice)
- United States v. Maclin, 915 F.3d 440 (7th Cir. 2019) (mistrial rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Jett, 908 F.3d 252 (7th Cir. 2018) (jury instructions and timing can mitigate dual-role witness risks)
- United States v. Boliaux, 915 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 2019) (distinguishing expert testimony from fact testimony)