United States v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 10 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-2756 |
| Parties | United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Omar Kashaka Taylor Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Submitted: October 19, 2021
Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
Omar Kashaka Taylor was convicted by a jury of sex trafficking a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a) (b)(2), (c), 1594(a), and 3559(e) (Count One); two counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud, and coercion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a), (b)(1), 1594(a), and 3559(e) (Counts Two and Four); and committing a felony offense involving a minor when required to register as a sex offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2260A (Count Three). The district court[1] sentenced Taylor to concurrent terms of280 months' imprisonment on the sex trafficking offenses and a consecutive 120 months for committing a felony involving a minor while a registered sex offender, for a total imprisonment term of 400 months. Taylor raises four claims on appeal: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the sex trafficking convictions; (2) the district court erred when it instructed the jury that a "happy-ending massage" was a commercial sex act; (3) the district court abused its discretion when it admitted prior bad act evidence; and (4) a conviction on Count One-sex trafficking of a minor-violated the double jeopardy clause because it is a lesser included offense of Count Two-sex trafficking by force, fraud, and coercion. We affirm.
Taylor was a regular client of a massage parlor located in St. Paul, Minnesota. After the parlor was shut down for operating without a license, Taylor started his own massage business in a house he leased in northeast Minneapolis. The charged offenses pertain to activities taking place at Taylor's massage business from August 2017 until his arrest in March 2018.
Taylor advertised his massage business on Backpage.com and enlisted numerous women to work for him. One of those women was S.N., who in August 2017 was 17 years old. At trial, S.N. testified that Taylor told her she could make more money if, during the massage, she was naked, wore lingerie, or gave clients "handjobs" or "blowjobs." Taylor posted sexually suggestive advertisements of S.N. on Backpage.com. S.N. testified that Taylor posted the ads, scheduled appointments for S.N., responded to client messages inquiring about the services S.N. would provide, drove S.N. to his house for client appointments, purchased drugs for S.N., and brought S.N. to parties so she could make extra money by stripping. S.N. further testified that most of her massage clients asked for sex acts, which included "handjobs," touching, and digital penetration. Taylor took half of every client payment received by S.N. S.N. further testified that Taylor raped her at least 15 times, twice resulting in hospital visits. S.N. feared that clients and Taylor would get upset if she refused clients' requests for sexual acts. S.N. described Taylor to the jury as "manipulative."
On cross-examination, Taylor elicited testimony from S.N. about her usage of methamphetamine, heroin, and acid, including how the drugs affected her body and impacted her memory. S.N. testified about running away from a treatment center and eventually connecting with Taylor for the purpose of friendship due to their age difference. S.N. testified that she initially thought Taylor was "kind of a funny guy" and "a nice guy." S.N. discussed staying at Taylor's house, acknowledging that she was able to leave the home when she wanted. In addition to drug usage, defense counsel posed several questions directed at S.N.'s credibility. In particular, Taylor questioned S.N. about her lack of reporting a sexual assault to anyone but her grandma and her inability to recall what she said to others during the course of the investigation, including to a nurse during an examination in January 2018 about the number of times Taylor had assaulted her. The jury convicted Taylor on both counts involving sex trafficking of S.N.
Eighteen-year-old A.L. worked for Taylor's massage business in March 2018. A.L. had no prior experience in the massage business. A.L. testified that when she agreed to work for Taylor, she was not told that giving "handjobs" would be part of her work. Taylor made pricing decisions for A.L. and took $40 of each client payment. A.L. testified that Taylor purchased lingerie for her to wear while providing massages to clients. Like S.N., Taylor told A.L. that she could charge more if she gave nude massages. Taylor helped A.L. coordinate her schedule, drove her to work, trained her, and paid her to massage him. Many of A.L.'s clients would try to touch her and would often get upset because they expected a "happy ending."
When A.L. inquired of Taylor about why the clients believed they could touch her or were expecting more than a traditional massage, Taylor assured her that they were coming to the house for "just a massage."
On one occasion, A.L. declined a client's request to perform a "handjob," which caused the client to ask her why she was working in a place like this because "he's not dumb and neither [is] [she]." The man became "aggressive" and "forceful," took A.L.'s hands and put them on his penis, and pressured A.L. to perform a "handjob," which A.L. then reluctantly did and left. A.L. testified that she would drink alcohol and use drugs while working for Taylor because she, along with other women working for Taylor, did not want to be doing what they were being directed to do while sober. The jury convicted Taylor of sex trafficking A.L.
The district court received, over Taylor's objection, testimony from another woman, R.T., who stayed at Taylor's house for periods of time during 2017 or 2018. The district court determined R.T.'s testimony was admissible as intrinsic evidence and under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). R.T. testified that each time she would perform a massage at Taylor's house, regardless of what went on in the room between her and the client, she gave Taylor a $50 "drop fee," meaning $50 was placed in an envelope and left for Taylor. R.T. also testified about the Backpage.com ads posted by Taylor as well as other evidence similar to the testimony provided by S.N. and A.L., including evidence that Taylor arranged R.T.'s massage appointments, took a portion out of every client payment made to R.T., expected R.T. to provide "happy-ending" massages, provided R.T. drugs and alcohol, and raped R.T. R.T. further testified that she had sexual relations with Taylor around 25 or 30 times and resisted only the last time when she was drunk and drugged.
Prior to the commencement of trial, Taylor moved to preclude the government from introducing his 2005 conviction for sexual assault of a minor during the government's case-in-chief, asserting the conviction was potentially admissible only if Taylor testified. The government countered that even if pursuant to Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997), Taylor stipulated that he had a prior conviction requiring him to register as a sex offender (an element of Count Three), the conviction was still admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). Subject to Taylor stipulating that he was required to register as a sex offender and that a conviction on Counts One or Two was sufficient to sustain a conviction on Count Three, which Taylor did, the district court prohibited the government from introducing evidence pertaining to the prior conviction during its case-in-chief. The district court reasoned that the prior conviction was inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because of the nature of the conviction and its age. Given the stipulation, the district court removed Count Three from the jury instructions and verdict form. Noting the government's "very strong objections" to its decision, the court stated that it was amenable to revisiting its evidentiary ruling during trial if Taylor's theory of defense or cross-examination opened the door in a way that might cause the court to change its Rule 403 analysis.
Insistent that the district court's ruling on the 2005 conviction was in error, the government then sought to sever Count Three, requiring Taylor to either plead guilty to that count or hold a separate trial on that count. The district court explained that it "would not seriously consider severing anything that would create more issues than it would resolve." The court declined to alter its prior ruling, noting Taylor, by stipulation, had waived any right to have the jury determine whether he was a convicted sex offender and again relying on its Rule 403 analysis.
Still unhappy with the district court's ruling, the government filed a motion to reconsider, requesting that the court again revisit its evidentiary ruling on the 2005 conviction and citing what it perceived as anticipated contested trial issues. The government also added a new argument-the failure to present Count Three to the jury could be fatal to the charge. The court held a hearing on the motion. While proposing bifurcation of Count Three such that if the jury convicted on Counts One, Two, or both, then the jury could be asked to decide whether Taylor was a registered sex offender, the government noted during the hearing that its primary objective was admission of the 2005 conviction during its case-in-chief. The court denied reconsideration on the admissibility of the conviction and reserved ruling on whether bifurcation or submission of an additional question to the jury on the registered sex offender issue was necessary, without conceding either was required in this case.
Trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial