United States v. Bell

Decision Date15 September 2014
Docket NumberNo. 13–2641.,13–2641.
Citation761 F.3d 900
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee v. Johnelle Lewis BELL, also known as Victorious P, also known as Bam, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

B. John Burns, AFPD, argued and on the brief, Des Moines, IA, for appellant.

Stephen Patrick O'Meara, AUSA, argued and on the brief, Council Bluffs, IA, for appellee.

Before SMITH, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

A jury convicted Johnelle Lewis Bell of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, sex trafficking, coercion and enticement to travel in interstate commerce for prostitution, conspiracy to engage in interstate transportation for prostitution, and interstate transportation for prostitution, after Bell coerced several women to travel interstate to perform commercial sex acts for Bell's pecuniary gain. On appeal, Bell challenges whether (1) sufficient evidence supported his convictions for conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, sex trafficking, and coercion and enticement to travel in interstate commerce for prostitution; (2) the district court 1 erred in denying Bell's motion for new trial based on the weight of the evidence; (3) the district court erred in denying Bell's motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence; (4) the districtcourt properly overruled Bell's Federal Rule of Evidence 403 objections to trial testimony regarding the victims' troubled pasts; and (5) Bell's 360–month prison sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. We affirm.

I. Background

An undercover informant with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) responded to a posting on the “Backpage” website that advertised prostitution services. The informant responded to the posting by making an appointment to meet the advertisement's subject, Jennifer Olewnik, at a hotel in Omaha, Nebraska. At the appointment, he and Olewnik negotiated for the informant to pay for a massage followed by oral sex. The FBI then raided the hotel room. Bell, a self-admitted “pimp,” was present during the raid along with Olewnik and another prostitute named Sabra Addison (“Sabra”). After the raid, Sabra was crying hysterically, shaking, and sitting in a fetal position.

Former prostitutes that Bell employed provided most of the government's evidence against Bell. Bell met Olewnik at a bar in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, during the summer of 2010. Bell told Olewnik that he lived in New Jersey and that he was going through a divorce.2 The pair quickly formed an intimate relationship. The relationship paused briefly while Olewnik was hospitalized in a psychiatric facility. While there, Olewnik informed Bell of her admission and treatment. After Olewnik's discharge, she resumed her relationship with Bell. Olewnik testified that Bell then asked her if she would be interested in working for him as a prostitute. He promised her that she would never “have to work another 9:00 to 5:00 job again.” Despite this “business” proposition, Bell and Olewnik maintained their intimate relationship. Bell told Olewnik that he loved her. Bell assured Olewnik that they would have a stable environment that would allow Olewnik to obtain custody of her young daughter, who was living with Olewnik's mother. Bell assured Olewnik that they would be together for a long time, that they would have children, and that he would make sure [she] had everything that [she] wanted and needed.” With these assurances, Olewnik agreed to work as a prostitute for Bell in November 2010. Bell acknowledges in his brief that [i]n the months that followed, Olewnik traveled from state to state with Mr. Bell, along with other prostitutes and pimps, engaging in commercial sex acts and advertising mostly on the Backpage website.” Olewnik estimated that she made over $50,000 for Bell by performing commercial sex acts.

Bell and Olewnik traveled to several states pursuant to their arrangement, including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, and South Carolina. Bell determined where they traveled and, more generally, made the decisions for the pair. Bell set rules for Olewnik. For example, “Bell told [Olewnik that she] would not be allowed to talk to any other pimps because that would be disrespectful to him.”

During these travels, Bell began to physically assault Olewnik. She testified that, while in transit from Maryland to South Carolina, Bell at one point “turned around and smacked [Olewnik] in the face” because she “said something smart.” Leaving South Carolina, the two traveled to Little Rock, Arkansas, which was “the home base” of Bell's prostitution operation. While in Little Rock, Olewnik objected to prostituting at truck stops. Bell told Olewnik that she “ha[d] no choice.” When she continued to object, he made [Olewnik]lay down on the bed [and] pull down [her] pants[,] and [he] hit [her] with a belt.” Olewnik then complied and went to the truck stop to sell sex acts because she “wasn't trying to get hit anymore.”

While in Little Rock, Olewnik met a prostitute named Courtney Mayberry. Olewnik and Bell recruited Mayberry to join their enterprise rather than prostitute alone. Bell made promises to Mayberry similar to those that he had made to Olewnik. He promised Mayberry [t]hat he would always make sure that [she was] safe and taken care of and had everything [she] needed and wanted.” Bell also promised Mayberry that [w]hen everything was done, he just wanted to be with [her], all the other girls would be excluded, and that [she] wouldn't have to do [prostitution] anymore after it was all over.” Mayberry agreed and began performing commercial sex acts for Bell. During this time, Bell told Mayberry that he loved her and wrote her poetry expressing his love. Bell also informed Mayberry that he was not married. Finally, Bell instructed Mayberry not to look into the eyes or speak to another pimp. Mayberry testified that she and Bell traveled to various states pursuant to their arrangement.

Mayberry and Bell developed a sexual relationship within a few days of her recruitment. After Olewnik discovered Mayberry and Bell having sex, Olewnik confronted Bell. Bell slapped Olewnik in the face, pushed her into the motel bathroom, and choked her because she threatened to call police. While choking Olewnik, Bell “told [her] if [she] ever threatened him with the cops again that he was going to kill [her] and [her] family, especially [her] daughter.” Bell and Mayberry left, but Olewnik remained and performed commercial sex acts in the room for Bell. Olewnik testified that she still loved Bell at this time and wished that his promises to her would come true. After a few weeks apart from Bell, Olewnik contacted her mother to return home. But Olewnik refused her mother's conditions and decided to remain with Bell.

One month after recruiting Mayberry, Bell recruited another prostitute named Brittany Lawson. Bell and Lawson soon became intimate. Like Olewnik and Mayberry, Bell persuaded Lawson with assurances that she no longer needed “to worry about anything anymore, that [she] was going to be taken care of and he was going to be with [her], that he wanted someone like [her].” Bell explained that he could give Lawson “children, happiness, trust, loyalty.” Lawson testified that she did not realize initially that Bell recruited her to be a prostitute; rather, she thought Bell was proposing a typical relationship.

Upset with Bell over his new escapades with Lawson, Olewnik and Mayberry left Bell despite their continued affections for him. They took with them a camera and computer that Bell used to post online solicitations. Bell and Lawson searched for Olewnik and Mayberry but were unable to locate them. With two of his prostitutes gone, Bell convinced Lawson to prostitute for him. They traveled to several states pursuant to this arrangement. Bell also instructed Lawson not to make eye contact with other pimps or speak with them.

In the meantime, another prostitute named “Francesca” joined the group. She traveled to several states including Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, and Louisiana to engage in commercial sex acts for Bell's benefit. She left with another pimp after about one month.

Approximately two months after Francesca departed, Olewnik returned to work for Bell, but Mayberry never returned.3 During her hiatus, Olewnik stayed with Mayberry and frequently used narcotics. She performed commercial sex acts for Mayberry's benefit so that they could purchase these narcotics. Olewnik eventually left Mayberry and contacted Bell. She testified that she contacted Bell [b]ecause [she] needed help and [she] needed to feel secure again and to feel safe, and [she] wanted to get clean from the drugs that [she] was on.” She called her mother but did not return home because she was not ready to fulfill her mother's condition of being a model parent to Olewnik's young daughter.

Bell also imposed conditions on Olewnik's return, requiring that she “had to work and that [she] had to stay off the drugs and that [she] had to be loyal and every penny that [she] got had to go to him and [she] couldn't keep anything from him.” Olewnik testified that she still had feelings for Bell. She also testified that she still believed that she and Bell would “end up together,” but “as long as [she] kept doing the disrespectful thing, not being loyal to him, there was no chance.” Around March 2011, Olewnik returned to Bell. Olewnik, Lawson, Francesca, and Bell traveled to various states to perform commercial sex acts. While in South Carolina, Lawson and Francesca left with another pimp; however, Lawson soon returned. Thus, Olewnik, Lawson, and Bell continued to travel to various states.

Olewnik recalls an incident where, after she had returned, Bell kicked and slapped her for falling asleep rather than working. The beating resulted in a large bruise along Olewnik's ribs as well as a large...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 cases
  • United States v. Anderson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 16 Abril 2015
    ... ... Fed.R.Evid. 403. Unfair prejudice under Rule 403 means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one. United States v. Bell, 761 F.3d 900, 912 (8th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Condon, 720 F.3d 748, 755 (8th Cir.2013) ), cert. denied, U.S. , 135 S.Ct. 503, 190 L.Ed.2d 378 (2014). When determining whether the probative value of evidence is substantially outweighed by any of the concerns listed in Rule 403, we ... ...
  • United States v. Taylor
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 10 Agosto 2022
    ... ... This appeal followed. II. DISCUSSION 1. Sufficiency of the Evidence We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo , considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, and accepting all reasonable inferences that support the verdict. United States v. Bell , 761 F.3d 900, 906 (8th Cir. 2014). "When a sufficiency argument hinges on the interpretation of a statute, we review the district court's interpretation de novo ." United States v. Reed , 668 F.3d 978, 982 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Gentry , 555 F.3d 659, 664 (8th Cir. 2009) ) ... ...
  • United States v. Rivera
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 25 Agosto 2015
    ... ... See United States v. Suarez, 588 F.2d 352, 355 (2d Cir.1978). 2 Other courts have invoked this objective aspect of the standard in evaluating challenges to sex-trafficking convictions. See, e.g., United States v. Bell, 761 F.3d 900, 908 (8th Cir.2014) (Bell coerced these women into performing commercial sex acts. He threatened both their physical and psychological well-being should they leave or implicate him to police. A reasonable person in this situation likely would have found his threats of harm ... ...
  • United States v. Castleman
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 5 Agosto 2015
    ... ... United States v. Zierke, 618 F.3d 755, 759 (8th Cir.2010) (quotation omitted); United States v. Bell, 761 F.3d 900, 912 (8th Cir.2014) (quotation omitted). Several Eighth Circuit cases have determined that evidence of death threats against witnesses ... is generally admissible against a criminal defendant to show consciousness of guilt of the crime charged. Zierke, 618 F.3d at 759, quoting ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • The Innocence Checklist
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-1, January 2021
    • 1 Enero 2021
    ...States v. Smith, 749 F.3d 465, 491 (6th Cir. 2014); United States v. Goodwin, 770 F.2d 631, 639 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Bell, 761 F.3d 900, 912 (8th Cir. 2014); United States v. Wilkes, 744 F.3d 1101, 1110 (9th Cir. 2014); United States v. Jordan, 806 F.3d 1244, 1252 (10th Cir. 20......
  • Review Proceedings
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • 1 Agosto 2022
    ...2020) (new trial denied because defendant failed to demonstrate diligence in discovering the existing additional evidence); U.S. v. Bell, 761 F.3d 900, 911-12 (8th Cir. 2014) (same); U.S. v. Brugnara, 856 F.3d 1198, 1207 (9th Cir. 2017) (new trial denied because defendant failed to diligent......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT