United States v. Thompson
2016 WL 1584382
W.D.N.Y.2016Background
- Defendant indicted on four counts alleging sex trafficking (18 U.S.C. § 1591) and obstruction; Government alleges he operated a commercial sex business and coerced three victims to engage in prostitution and surrender proceeds.
- Government moved in limine for: (1) exclusion of victims’ pre‑ and post‑indictment sexual behavior; (2) permission to introduce victims’ sexual behavior during the charged period; (3) admission of evidence of uncharged misconduct to show a climate of fear; (4) protective order limiting victims’ full names; and (5) permission for Victim 3 (a minor) to testify via closed‑circuit television.
- Court applied Fed. R. Evid. 412 to questions about victims’ sexual history and noted Rule 412(b) exceptions for prosecutor‑offered sexual‑behavior evidence and constitutional claims.
- Court preliminarily allowed Government to introduce contemporaneous sexual behavior (if offered by prosecutor) and preliminarily allowed evidence of uncharged criminal activity as background or inextricably intertwined evidence, subject to trial objections.
- Court barred Defendant from introducing or eliciting victims’ sexual behavior occurring before or after the charged time period; held that excluding such evidence does not violate Defendant’s Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights.
- Court granted a narrowly tailored protective order preventing public disclosure of victims’ full names (use first name and last initial); request for closed‑circuit testimony for Victim 3 held in abeyance pending evidentiary showing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 412 bars Defendant from introducing victims’ pre‑ and post‑indictment sexual behavior | Rule 412(a) excludes other sexual behavior; exclusion protects victims and is appropriate here | Exclusion violates Defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to present a defense and Sixth Amendment confrontation rights; prior prostitution shows consent or impeachment | Exclusion affirmed: Rule 412(a) bars such evidence; constitutional exceptions do not apply because the evidence is irrelevant to elements of §1591 and limits on cross‑examination are reasonable |
| Whether Government may introduce victims’ sexual behavior during the charged period | Rule 412(b)(1)(B) permits prosecutor to offer specific sexual behavior involving the accused | Defendant objected to scope but acknowledged Government may present linking evidence | Government may introduce contemporaneous sexual behavior and defendant may cross‑examine on that testimony, but cross‑examination cannot probe into other sexual behavior barred by Rule 412 |
| Admissibility of evidence of uncharged wrongdoing (drugs, violence, threats, sexual relations) | Such evidence is inextricably intertwined with charged trafficking, explains control and climate of fear, and completes the story | Defendant limitedly concedes if Government links conduct to offenses; objects to admitting consensual drug/alcohol evidence as unrelated | Preliminary grant: such evidence appears admissible as background/inextricably intertwined; Defendant may renew objections at trial (including Rule 403 or Carboni challenges) |
| Protective order and closed‑circuit testimony for minor Victim 3 | Protective order necessary to protect victims from adverse consequences and encourage testimony; CCTV request for minor under §3509(b) | Defendant does not oppose protective order; CCTV request needs evidentiary showing | Protective order granted narrowly (use first name + last initial); CCTV request held in abeyance until Government provides on‑the‑record factual support required by statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (right to present a defense) (recognizes right to present witnesses but not unlimited evidence)
- Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (criminal defendant has no right to introduce evidence that is incompetent or inadmissible under rules)
- Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (due process does not guarantee admission of irrelevant evidence)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (Confrontation Clause protects effective cross‑examination aimed at witness credibility)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (trial court has wide latitude to impose limits on cross‑examination)
- Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (Confrontation Clause guarantees opportunity for effective cross‑examination, not unlimited scope)
- United States v. Carboni, 204 F.3d 39 (2d Cir.) (uncharged acts admissible if inextricably intertwined or necessary to complete the story)
- United States v. Elbert, 561 F.3d 771 (8th Cir.) (prior prostitution evidence irrelevant to consent and probative value outweighed by prejudice)
- United States v. Cephas, 684 F.3d 703 (7th Cir.) (prior prostitution does not negate force/threats and is irrelevant to consent in trafficking context)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (public and press have right of access to criminal trials but it may be limited when compelling interest and narrow tailoring justify closure)