881 F.3d 1258
10th Cir.2018Background
- Defendant Kay Tee, a bilingual Wichita businessman who brokered deals for local (often Asian‑owned) massage parlors, was convicted on three federal counts: (1) attempted coercion/enticement to travel to engage in prostitution (18 U.S.C. § 2422(a)); (2) interstate transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises/using interstate facilities to promote prostitution (18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)); and (3) money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)).
- The prosecution’s case arose from a sting: an informant (“Lucy”) posed as a New York buyer and over two months telephoned Tee; another informant (“Jenny”) posed as a seller. Police arranged calls and a meetup; Tee agreed to pick up “Lucy” at the airport and accepted $100 from Jenny before his arrest.
- Government theory: Tee knowingly assisted Lucy to buy and operate a massage parlor as a prostitution front, showed predisposition by prior associations/slang and advertising, and took a $100 payment tied to brokering the illegal sale (money‑laundering theory included concealment by routing to his business account).
- Tee asserted entrapment and disputed sufficiency of the evidence on all counts; he also raised trial‑evidence objections (Rubmaps screenshots demonstrative use; Backpage advertisements hearsay/prejudice) and claimed racially discriminatory voir dire relating to Asian‑American references.
- The Tenth Circuit majority affirmed: sufficiency of evidence and rejection of entrapment, no plain error in voir dire, and discretionary admissibility of Rubmaps demonstrative and Backpage ads. A concurrence/dissent would reverse the money‑laundering conviction as legally infirm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Tee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / Entrapment (enticement to travel) | Evidence showed Tee encouraged Lucy to come to Wichita, used prostitution slang, had experience brokering parlors, and intended profit — so he was predisposed and inducement overcame entrapment. | Tee says he was entrapped, lacked predisposition, only lawful business activity shown, and Lucy initiated travel. | Affirmed — a reasonable jury could find intent to entice travel and predisposition; entrapment disproved beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Use of interstate facility to promote prostitution (§1952) | Telephone calls and airport pickup attempt, plus assurances to renovate/ad and knowledge of sexual services, show intent and act to promote prostitution. | Tee claims lack of intent to facilitate prostitution, no overt acts to promote, and entrapment/predisposition lacking. | Affirmed — evidence sufficient on intent, attempt (airport pickup), and predisposition. |
| Money laundering (§1956) | $100 deposited into Tee’s business account constituted a financial transaction involving proceeds of unlawful activity and was concealed via a legitimate business deposit. | Tee argues $100 was a taxi/airport fee (not criminal proceeds); dissent contends law requires a distinct transaction after proceeds are obtained (so §1956 conviction invalid as matter of law). | Majority affirmed — jury could find $100 was payment for brokering illegal sale and that deposit concealed proceeds; court declined to reach the novel legal question (dissent would reverse). |
| Trial evidence & procedure: voir dire, Rubmaps, Backpage ads | Rubmaps screenshots properly used demonstratively to explain sexual nature of site; Backpage ads show Tee’s prior advertising and predisposition; voir dire questions about racial bias were legitimate given evidence. | Tee argues Rubmaps demo was unfairly prejudicial/substantive; Backpage ads hearsay and prejudicial; voir dire singled out an Asian‑appearing venireperson and was discriminatory. | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion admitting demonstratives and ads (hearsay waived); no plain constitutional error in voir dire questioning. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (establishes elements must be found beyond a reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Nguyen, 413 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2005) (entrapment/predisposition framework)
- United States v. Duran, 133 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir. 1998) (factors showing predisposition)
- United States v. Kennedy, 64 F.3d 1465 (10th Cir. 1995) (distinguishing §1956/§1957 timing of proceeds/transactions)
- United States v. Johnson, 971 F.2d 562 (10th Cir. 1992) (§1957 interpretation; transaction timing issue)
- United States v. Seward, 272 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2001) (proceeds/transaction distinctness principle in laundering cases)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibits race‑based juror strikes)
- Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. 28 (permitting voir dire on racial bias in certain contexts)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (plain‑error review standard)