UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plаintiff-Appellee, v. JABOREE WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-1002
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Argued May 24, 2018 — Decided August 15, 2018
Before MANION and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and GETTLEMAN, District Judge.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 2:16-cr-00111-JPS-1 — J. P. Stadtmueller, Judge.
While the government did not violate the rules prohibiting the use of character evidence, it probably did violate the expert disclosure requirement. Nonetheless, we affirm Williams’ conviction becаuse any error was harmless. The evidence of his guilt was so overwhelming that the jury would surely have convicted him even if the government‘s expert had not testified.
I.
Jaboree Williams was accused of myriad offenses relating primarily to a wide-ranging sex-trafficking scheme. We won‘t recount every sordid detail of Williams’ scheme; suffice it to say that he lured women in desperate circumstances into prostitution by convincing them that he would take care of them. He then maintained control over these women through brutal physical abuse. He was indicted on numerous charges relating to sex trafficking, prostitution, heroin, obstruction of justice, and extortion.
Before trial, the government filed a notice of its intent to call Amy Mentzel, an FBI agent, as an expert witness. The notice adequately described Mentzel‘s credentials and her career with the FBI. But its summary of her anticipаted testimony was sparse: it listed a series of broad topics without any explanation of what she would say about each. For example, it stated that she would testify about “the recruiting processes used by pimps,” “the methods pimps and those they prostitute use to advertise their services and acquire customers,” and “other aspects of human sex trade involving adults and juveniles.” It offered no detail about what Mentzel would say about recruiting, advertising, or any other aspect of the sex trade.
Williams moved to exclude Mentzel from testifying on the ground that the expert disclоsure was inadequate and her testimony
The court overruled these objections, and Mentzel testified. She told the jury abоut how a human trafficker preys on vulnerable young women and makes them think that they‘re in a “boyfriend/girlfriend type of relationship” before having them go on prostitution “dates.” She talked about how pimps coerce their victims through fraud and force, how they handle money, how they punish their victims to ensure obedience, how they organize their operations, what certain terminology means (like “trick” and “incall“), and the sorts of rules they set for their victims. Mentzel did not testify about Williams or his actions, as she had not been involved in his case.
Mentzel‘s expert testimony was a small part of а trial in which the lay testimony was substantial. Three of Williams’ victims testified about how Williams recruited them to prostitution, set up prostitution “dates” in numerous states, laid down rules for those “dates,” controlled and kept any payment, violently punished them for breaking any of his rules, and threatened them to ensurе obedience. One victim testified that Williams knew about her addiction to Percocet and withheld the drug as a means of controlling her. There was also testimony that Williams choked one victim to the point of unconsciousness, stomped on one in a bathtub, beat one with a belt, punchеd one in the face, broke one victim‘s nose, and more. A woman named Heller, who was romantically linked to Williams but did not engage in prostitution, testified that Williams admitted to prostituting several of the testifying victims. Heller often picked Williams and his victims up from hotels where Williams had forced them to sеrvice his clients. She also listened as Williams physically abused one of his victims. Another witness, one of Williams’ longtime friends, told the jury that Williams had both introduced one of the testifying victims as his prostitute and bragged about his pimping activities.
The documentary evidence was similarly ample. There were рictures of injuries that Williams had inflicted on his victims. There were online prostitution ads for each of the testifying victims, all linked to Williams’ email addresses. There were text messages and Facebook messages in which Williams admitted that he was a pimp and referred to the same victims who later tеstified at his trial. In short, the evidence against Williams was overwhelming.
The jury convicted Williams of almost all of the charged crimes, and he now appeals that conviction.
II.
Williams argues that the court should have excluded Mentzel‘s testimony, because the government‘s expert disclosure was insufficient.
The government, however, argues that this standard does not apply. According to the government, a written summary must include more than a list of tоpics only when an expert provides opinion testimony. And Mentzel did not provide opinion testimony; she provided “background, educational testimony.” Thus, the government says, the list it provided was enough to satisfy
There are serious reasons to doubt the government‘s position. The “written summary” requirеment of
That said, any deficiency in the written summary was harmless. As an initial matter, Williams has not shown that the lack of detail affected his ability to present a defense. For example, he hаs not shown that he was “unduly surprised” by Mentzel‘s testimony. United States v. Thornton, 642 F.3d 599, 606 (7th Cir. 2011) (holding that a defendant was not prejudiced by an inadequate
Moreover, any error in admitting Mentzel‘s testimony “could not have made any difference” to the outcome. Duvall, 272 F.3d at 829. To evaluate whether an error was harmless, we consider “whether the prosecution‘s case would have been significantly less persuasive in the mind of thе average juror if the erroneously admitted evidence had been excluded.” United States v. Saunders, 826 F.3d 363, 370 (7th Cir. 2016). Williams has conceded that the testimony of his victims was more than adequate to convince the jury that he was guilty of the charges for which he was convicted, and “[t]he question for the trial was whether the womеn should be believed.” Nothing in Mentzel‘s testimony bore on whether the women who testified should be believed, and we see no reason that an average juror would find the prosecution‘s case less compelling without Mentzel‘s description of how sex trafficking works.
Williams objects to Mentzel‘s testimоny for another reason: he says that it should have been excluded as evidence of a “group character trait.” The prosecution ordinarily cannot introduce “[e]vidence of a person‘s character or character trait … to prove that on a partiсular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character trait.”
This argument fails, because Mentzel‘s testimony was not designed to illustrate the “character” of a typical sex trafficker. Although it is difficult to give a comprehensive definition of “character evidence,” we generally interpret it as “evidence that ‘refers to elements of one‘s dispоsition, such as honesty, temperance, or peacefulness,’ which shows a propensity to act a certain way in a certain situation.” United States v. Romero, 189 F.3d 576, 587 (7th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Doe, 149 F.3d 634, 638 (7th Cir. 1998)).
Becаuse of this rule, Mentzel could not have testified about the character of sex traffickers to raise the forbidden inference that Williams’ similar character made him likely to engage in sex trafficking. For example, she could not have testified that sex traffickers are violent people likely to brutalize women so that the government could then argue that Williams was also violent and thus likely to brutalize women. Nor could the government have used Mentzel‘s testimony to make the same point indirectly by relying on the acts of both sex traffickers and Williams to raise the forbidden inference about how people with a certain character trait are likely to behave.
But that is not what the government did. Mentzel‘s testimony was not about the propensity of people with a certain disposition to commit sex-trafficking crimes. Nor did the government use Mentzel‘s testimony to illustrate that the acts of sex traffickers revealed that they had a certain disposition that made them likely to commit sex-trafficking crimes. Nor did the government use that evidence to argue that Williams had the disposition of a sex trafficker and was thеrefore likely to have committed sex-trafficking crimes. The government used Mentzel‘s testimony about the acts of sex traffickers to illustrate their modus operandi, not their character; it suggested that because Williams employed similar techniques, his behavior was evidence that he toо was engaged in a sex-trafficking operation.
We have repeatedly rejected essentially the same argument that Williams makes now. For example, in United States v. Romero, the defendant was a pedophile accused of using the internet to lure underage boys away from their homes, and the government introduced an expert witness who discussed the actions of sex offenders to “explain their techniques or
United States v. Doe is another example. 149 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 1998). There, the defendant was accused of being part of a Nigerian smuggling operation that trafficked heroin from Southeast Asia to the United States. Id. at 636. The government introduced an expert witness who testified about the practices of such Nigerian drug-smuggling operations and how they get their drugs into the country. Id. We held that this testimony was not impermissible group character evidence, because it did not “suggest[] that [the defendant] had a ‘propensity’ to import or distribute drugs.” It “served only to illuminate the modus operandi of Nigerian importers of Southeast Asian heroin” so that the jury would have useful context “in evaluating proposed explanations of [the defendant‘s] observed behaviors.” Id. at 638.
The same is true here. The government did not introduce Mentzel‘s testimony to show that Williams’ flawed character predisposed him to human trafficking. Instead, the point of the evidence was to show that Williams’ actions were consistent with the management of a sex-trafficking scheme.
* * *
Any deficiency in the government‘s notice was harmless, and Mentzel‘s expert evidence was not inadmissible character evidence. The district court‘s judgment is AFFIRMED.
*