United States v. Corley
| Decision Date | 11 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | 13-cr-48 (AJN),18-cv-9280 (AJN),18-cv-5050 (AJN) |
| Parties | United States of America, v. Royce Corley, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Royce Corley was convicted in 2014 after a week-long jury trial of sex trafficking of a minor and possession of child pornography. The Second Circuit subsequently affirmed his conviction. He now brings a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and a motion to return property. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES his motion for a new trial, DENIES his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and DENIES his motion for a return of property.
On January 22, 2013, the Government charged Royce Corley in a two-count indictment, and he was soon arraigned on those counts. No. 13-cr-48, Dkt. Nos. 1, 5.1 On October 10, 2013, the Government filed a superseding indictment, which is the governing charging document in this case. Dkt. No. 26. The Government charged Corley with three counts of sex trafficking of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a), and one count of possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Id. The Court appointed Corley counsel.
Before the trial began, the Court entered a protective order governing material disclosed by the Government under 18 U.S.C. § 3500 relating to three minor victims referenced in the superseding indictment. See Dkt. No. 36.
On November 12, 2013, trial began before Judge Robert P. Patterson. At the week-long jury trial, the Government presented evidence that Corley, using the alias Ron Iron, sought out underage girls for a prostitution ring. The three victims identified at trial were Elaine Jones, Jenna Smith, and Mariam Miller.2 He took photos of these girls in which they appeared partially naked, made the photos into internet ads for sexual conduct, and provided the girls with cellphones and apartments in Manhattan that Corley rented in which to have sex with customers for money. Corley separated his criminal prostitution business into two parts: "Red Velvet" was his adult prostitution business, while "Gramercy College" was his minor girls prostitution business. Trial Transcript (Tr.) at 224-26.
The Government put forward physical evidence and documents seized from Corley to corroborate their theory. For example, the Government introduced a thumb drive, Government Exhibit (GX) 11,3 that police officers found in Corley's pocket at the time of his arrest. This drive contained, among other things, a logo with Corley's "Ron Iron" brand and about twenty folders containing sexual photos of the women Corley prostituted, including Elaine Jones and Jenna Smith. The Government also introduced a ledger found in Corley's pocket, with lists of names and corresponding calculations. One of those names was Jenna Smith. See GX 17. The Government also introduced a handwritten notebook page from Corley's apartment containing more names of women (GX 19L), multiple sets of keys corresponding to apartments Corley usedfor prostitution (GX 18), credit and gift cards used to pay for internet ads (GX 12A-12K), and an SD card found in Corley's phone containing photos of Jones that Corley had posted online (GX 21). The Government further introduced evidence of business records from a website that Corley used to post ads (Backpage.com), from financial institutions, and from internet service providers. See, e.g., GX 40, 40A13, 40B12, 40C, 40D13, 40E, 111-16, 130-41.
Elaine Jones, Jenna Smith, and Mariam Miller each testified at trial. Mariam Miller, the minor victim in Count Three of the Indictment, testified that she was sold for sex by Corley when she was sixteen years old. Tr. at 278. Corley provided Miller a place to stay, told her she would be having sex for money, and began prostituting her the same day. Tr. at 281-88. He also asked Miller what sex acts she was willing to perform, took her pictures, and put them up on the internet in ads for sex. Tr. at 282-87. A few days after Corley began prostituting Miller, Corley told her that he knew she was seventeen. Tr. at 288. When she responded that she was actually sixteen, Corley said it was okay. Id. Jenna Smith, the minor victim in Count Two of the Indictment, likewise testified that she was prostituted by Corley at sixteen years old. Tr. at 184-85. Corley took sexual photos of Smith and posted them in an online advertisement. Tr. at 189; see GX 40B1, 171B. Corley also provided Smith with a cellphone, which she used to receive calls from men soliciting her. Tr. at 191, 199. And he used Smith to help run his business, collect his money, pay rent, and recruit other victims (including Jones). Tr. 201-04, 208, 212-15. Elaine Jones, the minor victim in Count One of the Indictment, testified that she was sixteen years old when she started working for Corley as a prostitute. Tr. at 305-07. Jones worked for Corley for months, and Corley similarly took photographs of her to use in online advertisements. Jones explicitly informed Corley she was only sixteen years old. See Tr. at 306-07, 318-19, 323, 326; GX 40A3, 115, 171C.
Corley offered only one piece of evidence at trial, an affidavit of a law enforcement officer. Tr. at 156. He rested without calling any witnesses. Tr. at 451, 453.
On November 15, 2013, the jury found Corley guilty on all counts. Specifically, the jury convicted of three counts of sex trafficking of a minor. For each of these counts, the verdict form contained special interrogatories as to Corley's knowledge that the victims were minors. The jury indicated that the Government had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Corley knew each victim was under the age of 18, was in reckless disregard of this fact, and had a reasonable opportunity to observe the victim. Tr. at 573-76. The jury also convicted Corley on one count of possession of child pornography. Id.; see also Dkt. No. 63 (Amended Judgment).
In April 2014, Judge Patterson sentenced Corley to a term of 120 months' incarceration, to be followed by ten years' supervised release. See 13-cr-48, Dkt. No. 66. Corley is still serving that sentence.
The procedural history following Corley's conviction is complex and lengthy. On May 8, 2014, Corley, proceeding pro se, appealed his conviction to the Second Circuit. Dkt. No. 64. While Corley's appeal was pending, Judge Patterson passed away, and his case was reassigned to the Undersigned. Corley then filed a pro se motion for release pending appeal, which this Court denied. Dkt. Nos. 72 (motion), 77 (denial), 81 (denying reconsideration), 83 (same).
In the Second Circuit, Corley then moved to supplement the appeal record. Dkt. No. 84. He asked the Second Circuit to add various documents from the Government's 3500 material to the trial record, to unredact those documents to reveal the victims' actual last names, and to vacate the District Court's order of protection, which restricted his ability to view and disseminate the 3500 materials. Id. In July 2015, the Second Circuit remanded Corley's appeal to this Court for the limited purpose of considering these requests in the first instance. Id.Corley also moved the Court to compel production of certain documents from his former attorneys and investigators. After extensive briefing, on January 15, 2016, this Court resolved these requests. Dkt. No. 101. The Court granted in part and denied in part Corley's request to supplement the appeal record. Id. at 3. The Court also denied Corley's requests for unredacted versions of these documents and for access to the victims' full names. Id. at 5-6. And the Court denied Corley's motion to compel production from his former attorneys and private investigators. Id. at 9-10. Over the next several months, the Court denied multiple additional requests from Corley to compel the Government, the Court, and private parties to produce additional documents. See Dkt. Nos. 111, 115. On July 28, 2016, after additional filings from the parties, the Court formally resolved Corley's motion to supplement the record and closed this matter, readying it for the Second Circuit's decision. See Dkt. No. 120.
In October 2016, while his direct appeal was still pending in the Second Circuit, Corley asked the Court to extend the deadline to file a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Dkt. No. 121; see Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b)(1) (). The Government did not oppose this request. Dkt. No. 123. On November 10, 2016, the Court gave Corley an additional two months to file his motion. Dkt. No. 124. After additional extensions for both parties, Corley's motion for a new trial was fully briefed in August 2017. See Dkt. No. 141.
While that motion was in the process of being briefed, in February 2017, the Second Circuit affirmed Corley's conviction. See United States v. Corley, 679 F. App'x 1 (2d Cir. 2017). The Second Circuit held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary decisions, held that the Court did not err in instructing the jury, and found theevidence sufficient to sustain Corley's conviction. Id. Much of the Second Circuit's decision is relevant to the issues here, and the Court discusses its holding in greater detail below. In October 2017, the Supreme Court denied Corley's petition for a writ of certiorari. Corley v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 205 (2017).
In early 2018, Corley asked the Court for access to documents in order to prepare a collateral challenge to the judgment against him. Dkt. No. 146. The Court denied this request. Dkt. No. 149. In October 2018, Corley filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Dkt. No. 156; see also No. 18-cv-9280 (AJN) (S...
To continue reading
Request your trial