United States v. Wilbur Senat
698 F. App'x 701
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Victim S.C., age 15, was coerced by Wilbur Senat from New York to Philadelphia and kept in dire conditions; she was forced to engage in commercial sex and was beaten and chained when uncooperative.
- After initial control by Senat, another pimp (Samuel Verrier) took S.C.; police found S.C. when Verrier and others were arrested in New Jersey.
- Senat was charged and convicted of sex trafficking of a child (18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)) and transporting a minor to engage in prostitution (18 U.S.C. § 2423(a)); he received a 15-year sentence and appealed.
- On appeal Senat raised three evidentiary challenges: (1) restriction on cross-examining the victim about prior rape allegations; (2) admission of evidence regarding other crimes/acts by Senat and other pimps under Rules 404(b) and 403; and (3) admission/authentication of a Greyhound bus schedule.
- The Third Circuit affirmed, finding waiver or no plain error and that the challenged evidence was admissible or properly authenticated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Senat) | Defendant's Argument (U.S.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of cross-examination into two prior rape allegations violated Confrontation Clause/Rule 412 | Denial prevented probing the victim's credibility about past sexual-allegation fabrications | Court limited inquiry under Rule 412; defense had opportunity to show prior false allegations and waived further hearing | Waived; alternatively no plain error—court properly limited cross-exam under Confrontation Clause and Rule 412 |
| Whether admission of testimony that Senat fired/was involved in a shooting and threatened the victim was improper Rule 404(b) evidence | No legitimate purpose; not relevant to charged offenses | Showed threats/coercion used to maintain control over victim—directly probative of elements of §1591(a) | Not plain error—evidence relevant to coercion and thus admissible (near Rule 404(b) boundary but permissible) |
| Whether testimony about other pimps forcing victim to work was improper 404(b)/403 evidence | Testimony implicated bad acts unrelated to Senat and prejudiced the jury | Actions were by other actors (not Senat), relevant to victim’s arrest, why she lied, and defense used it to blame Verrier | No plain error—Rule 404(b) not implicated; probative value outweighed minimal prejudice under Rule 403 |
| Whether Greyhound bus schedule was improperly authenticated | Witness lacked personal knowledge of the route; schedule inadmissible without proper authentication | Schedule admissible as a business record under Rules 803(6)/902(11); accuracy goes to weight, not admissibility | Frivolous; properly admitted with certification under Rule 902(11); no additional witness authentication required |
Key Cases Cited
- Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (waiver vs. plain-error framework for appellate review)
- United States v. John-Baptiste, 747 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2014) (trial courts’ wide latitude to limit cross-examination)
- United States v. Mussare, 405 F.3d 161 (3d Cir. 2005) (limits on cross-examination for harassment, prejudice, confusion)
- United States v. Tail, 459 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2006) (exclusion of prior rape allegations with limited probative value)
- United States v. Green, 617 F.3d 233 (3d Cir. 2010) (Rule 404(b) admissibility and when uncharged misconduct is not "other" crime)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (context on probative value and trial narrative relevance)
- United States v. Catabran, 836 F.2d 453 (9th Cir. 1988) (accuracy of business records affects weight, not admissibility)