U.S. v. Daniels

Decision Date09 August 2011
Docket NumberNo. 09–1386.,09–1386.
Citation653 F.3d 399
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,v.Robert C. DANIELS, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

ARGUED: Erik W. Scharf, Coconut Creek, Florida, for Appellant. Andrew Goetz, Assistant United States Attorney, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Erik W. Scharf, Coconut Creek, Florida, for Appellant. Leonid Feller, Assistant United States Attorney, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee.Before: BOGGS and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges; and COLLIER, Chief District Judge.*

OPINION

BOGGS, Circuit Judge.

Robert Daniels, also known as Motor City Mink,” ran a prostitution business in Detroit. Most of the prostitutes were adults, but a few teenage girls were involved. Daniels appeals his conviction on five counts of (I) engaging in a child exploitation enterprise (“CEE”), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g)(2), (II) manufacturing and (III) distributing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a) and 2252A(a)(2), (IV) transporting a minor for purposes of prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), and (V) sex trafficking of children, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a). He was sentenced to multiple concurrent terms, the longest of which was 420 months. Daniels contends that the government presented insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction on Counts I, II, III, and V, that the district court committed plain error by instructing the jury that lack of knowledge of age was not a defense to Count IV, and that the evidence admitted in support of Count I had a prejudicial “spillover effect” that entitles him to a new trial on the other counts. We affirm Daniels's conviction on Counts II–V but reverse as to Count I, because the government presented insufficient evidence—as we interpret the elements of § 2252A(g)(2)—to establish that Daniels was engaged in a CEE.

I

On April 16, 2008, Daniels and his co-defendant Stephanie Head were indicted by a grand jury on eight counts of child pornography and child and adult prostitution. The counts at issue in this appeal are:

I. Engaging in a CEE, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g)(2), which provides:

A person engages in a child exploitation enterprise for the purposes of this section if the person violates section 1591, section 1201 if the victim is a minor, or chapter 109A (involving a minor victim), 110 (except for sections 2257 and 2257A), or 117 (involving a minor victim), as a part of a series of felony violations constituting three or more separate incidents and involving more than one victim, and commits those offenses in concert with three or more other persons.

II. Manufacturing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), which punishes:

Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in ... any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct....

III. Distributing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A), which punishes the knowing distribution of “any child pornography that has been mailed, or using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce shipped or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer.”

IV. Transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), which provides:

A person who knowingly transports an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce ..., with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.

V. Sex trafficking of children, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a),1 which punishes one who:

knowingly [ ] in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce ... recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains by any means a person ... knowing that ... the person has not attained the age of 18 years and will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act[.]

Head, Daniels's lead prostitute, or “bottom,” pled guilty on July 10, 2008, agreeing to testify against Daniels, and was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment. Daniels's case proceeded to a jury trial, during which the government presented testimony from FBI agents, police officers, and Head and six other former prostitutes who had worked for Daniels.

Testimony established that the FBI connected Daniels's email address and phone number to internet advertisements of escort services on craigslist.org and other Internet sites. Approximately 2800 ads were posted, involving an estimated 89 individual prostitutes. The ads typically included a woman's photo and Head's phone number, used to make appointments. As a “bottom,” Head's duties included taking money, scheduling “dates,” and recruiting, training, and mentoring prostitutes. She also took photos of the prostitutes, and both she and Daniels posted Internet ads for escorts. Head testified that, when she posted ads, “usually [Daniels] told [her] to do it.” She stated that Daniels “disciplined” her, hitting and slapping her, when she “did something that [she] knew [she] wasn't supposed to do.”

Besides the prostitutes themselves, several people assisted Daniels's operation. Head testified that Daniels met with pimps from Detroit and Ohio, who accompanied Head and Daniels on trips to other states. Daniels's brother rented hotel rooms that were used for prostitution, while his mother occasionally provided rides to Head and some of the other prostitutes.

Head testified about Daniels's involvement with several minors. She stated that she and Daniels met SD in Maryland in late 2006 and took her to Detroit to engage in prostitution. Head stated that when Daniels met sisters RaH, ReH, and HH and their friend KC, he believed that the four girls “were 17 [and] about to be 18 in a week or so.” Head testified that she took nude pictures of HH, and that Daniels told her to do so. She also identified notebooks she and Daniels used to keep track of the prostitutes' names, ages, and other information.

Another adult prostitute, Brittany Ayers, testified that she worked for Daniels from July 2007 to March 2008. She testified that she did not know, until she was arrested by police while on a “date” with KC, that any of the prostitutes were underage.

RaH testified that in September 2007, when she was 16 years old, she was walking home from a tattoo parlor with KC when “Mink” approached her in a Cadillac and asked her if she wanted a job. She told her sisters, HH and ReH, about the opportunity. Daniels took the four girls to a hotel and explained that they would put their pictures online and have sex for money. He took RaH into a bathroom and asked her to take off her clothes. RaH testified that she went on three “dates,” and that she first told Daniels she was 18, then “at some point” told him that she was 17. She testified that she was “pretty sure” one or more of the dates took place after she told him that she was underage.

ReH testified that she was 15 when she met Daniels in September 2007. She had sex for money twice and gave the money to Head. She testified that she told Daniels she was 18, but that she thought she told Head her true age.

HH testified that she was 16 in September 2007, when “Mink” picked her up and took her to a motel, where he explained that an escort service involved [h]aving sex for money.” She was asked to perform oral sex on Daniels in the motel bathroom. Head took nude pictures of her for craigslist ads. According to HH, she went on one “date.” She testified that “at some point” she told Daniels that she was 17, and that he wrote that information down in a notebook.

SD testified that she was 16 years old in November 2006, when she met “Mink” in College Park, Maryland. She was walking down the street when he pulled up to her in a car and invited her to a hotel. At the hotel, she talked to Head and a prostitute named “Trouble” about “what they d[id] and where they [we]re from.” She then accompanied Daniels, Head, and Trouble to a sex shop and a mall, where they purchased an outfit, makeup, and a wig for her. Daniels took pictures of SD and asked her to come to Detroit with them. The four drove to Detroit, where SD had at least three “dates.” SD testified that nobody asked her how old she was until she arrived in Detroit. After SD had worked for Daniels, Head discovered that she was underage. The next day, Daniels gave SD $80 and took her to the Greyhound station to catch a bus back to Maryland.

The government played a series of phone calls that had been intercepted using a wire tap on Head's phone. During one call, Head told a fellow prostitute about an argument with Daniels:

He said something stupid which pissed me off which made me say something stupid like, nigger, all you pimping now is little kids, you know, cause later all he had is like 14 through 16. So, I am like, you haven't had a girl that is 18 in a long time....

The call was admitted over the hearsay objection of Daniels's attorney. The government argued that it fell within a hearsay exception for statements made in the course of a conspiracy, and was also a statement against interest.

An FBI agent authenticated evidence seized from Daniels's home, including notebooks of information about prostitutes, fur coats, a chalice with the word “PIMP” on it in fake diamonds, a business card for Motor City Mink listing Daniels as CEO and owner, a casino player's card, a lease for a Cadillac in the name of Daniels's mother, bank cards, watches, and jewelry.

The parties stipulated that craigslist.org and other social-networking sites are Internet websites and that any image uploaded to them travels in interstate commerce. Jointly-submitted jury instructions provided the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
59 cases
  • United States v. Sadler
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • January 21, 2022
    ...not require a showing of proximate causation, including foreseeability. Jeffries , 958 F.3d at 520, 524 ; see also United States v. Daniels , 653 F.3d 399, 409 (6th Cir. 2011) (noting that the inquiry is whether the error was plain at the time of appellate review, not at the time of trial).......
  • United States v. Morgan
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • August 5, 2022
    ...141 S. Ct. 307, 208 L.Ed.2d 58 (2020) ; United States v. Washington , 743 F.3d 938, 941–43 (4th Cir. 2014) ; United States v. Daniels , 653 F.3d 399, 409–10 (6th Cir. 2011) ; United States v. Cox , 577 F.3d 833, 836–38 (7th Cir. 2009) ; United States v. Taylor , 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. ......
  • United States v. Moreira-Bravo
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • December 27, 2022
    ...v. Tyson , 947 F.3d 139, 144 (3d Cir. 2020) ; United States v. Washington , 743 F.3d 938, 943 (4th Cir. 2014) ; United States v. Daniels , 653 F.3d 399, 410 (6th Cir. 2011) ; United States v. Cox , 577 F.3d 833, 838 (7th Cir. 2009) ; United States v. Taylor , 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 200......
  • United States v. McGarity
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • February 6, 2012
    ...which the parties (and at least one of our sister circuits) agree should be interpreted similarly to § 848. See United States v. Daniels, 653 F.3d 399, 412 (6th Cir.2011) (“Given the similar language [in the two statutes] we believe that interpretations of § 848 should guide our interpretat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Online prostitution and trafficking.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 77 No. 3, March - March 2013
    • March 22, 2013
    ...§ 235. (310) Pimp Daniels was convicted on child pornography charges, Mann Act, and sex trafficking charges. United States v. Daniels, 653 F.3d 399, 404 (6th Cir. 2011). He unsuccessfully claimed that he didn't know the girl he was advertising for sale for sexual use on Craigslist was a min......

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