United States v. Wilkins

• Citation: 538 F.Supp.3d 49
• Decision Date: 11 May 2021
• Docket Number: Criminal Action No. 19-390 (RC)
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, v. Michael Jabaar WILKINS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

538 F.Supp.3d 49

UNITED STATES of America,

v.Michael Jabaar WILKINS, Defendant.

Criminal Action No. 19-390 (RC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed May 11, 2021

Amy Elizabeth Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for United States of America.

Jose Alejandro German, Public Defender, Federal Public Defender for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OF VICTIMS’ OTHER SEXUAL BEHAVIOR AND SEXUAL PREDISPOSITION; PRECLUDE USE OF VICTIMS’ LAST NAMES; INTRODUCE BUSINESS RECORDS EVIDENCE; OFFER EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY; PROHIBIT REFERENCES TO SENTENCING, EXCLUDE WITNESSES FROM THE COURTROOM DURING TRIAL; EXCLUDE EVIDENCE NOT PRODUCED IN RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY; PRECLUDE SELF-SERVING HEARSAY; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO ADMIT OTHER CRIMES EVIDENCE; DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEVER ASSAULT CHARGE IN INDICTMENT; AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE.

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Michael Jabaar Wilkins is charged with two counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud, and coercion, four counts of transportation of an individual with an intent to engage in prostitution, two counts of coercion and enticement to travel in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution, one count of interstate travel and transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises, and one count of assault. Superseding Indictment, Dec. 9, 2020, ECF No. 61. A jury trial is scheduled to begin in this case on July 26, 2021.

In brief, Mr. Wilkins stands accused of trafficking three victim-complainants from Norfolk, Virginia, to Washington, D.C. to engage in prostitution and other commercial sexual acts. Id. The charged offenses occurred between 2011 and 2019, during which time Mr. Wilkins is alleged to have transported these complainants to "the Track"—a location in the District under investigation by the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia ("MPD") and FBI Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Force due to the prevalence of street-level commercial sexual exploitation in the area. Mr. Wilkins is also charged with assaulting one of the complainants while she was working at the Track—an altercation that was caught on tape by a security camera.

Before the Court are a number of motions from both parties. The Government has filed motions in limine seeking: (1) the exclusion of any evidence of the complainants’ other sexual behavior and sexual predisposition (ECF No. 27); (2) the preclusion of use of the victims’ last names (ECF No. 28); (3) the introduction of business records evidence (ECF No. 33); (4) the introduction of expert witness testimony (ECF No. 34); (5) the prohibition of references to sentencing, the exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom during trial, the exclusion of evidence not produced in reciprocal discovery, preclusion of self-serving hearsay, admission of jail call admissions, and preclusion of Mr. Wilkins's counsel cross-examining government witnesses regarding inadmissible criminal convictions (ECF No. 35); (6) the admission of electronic communications evidence (ECF No. 36); and (5) the admission of other crimes evidence (ECF No. 40). Mr. Wilkins has also filed motions requesting: (1) that the Court sever the assault charge in the indictment (ECF No. 38), and (2) that the Court suppress evidence obtained from search warrants of two cell phones and Mr. Wilkins's Instagram account (ECF No. 39). A motions hearing was held on March 31, 2021 to allow for oral argument on each of these motions. The Court addresses each of the pending motions in turn.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

"While neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Federal Rules of Evidence expressly provide for motions in limine, the Court may allow such motions ‘pursuant to the district court's inherent authority to manage the course of trials.’ " Barnes v. District of Columbia , 924 F. Supp. 2d 74, 78 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting Luce v. United States , 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984) ); Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1891, 195 L.Ed.2d 161 (2016) (noting inherent "power of a judge to hear a motion in limine "). "Motions in limine are designed to narrow the evidentiary issues at trial." Williams v. Johnson , 747 F. Supp. 2d 10, 14 (D.D.C. 2010). Such "pre-trial ruling[s], if possible, may generally be the better practice, for it permits counsel to make the necessary strategic determinations" prior to trial. United States v. Jackson , 627 F.2d 1198, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1980). However, "a motion in limine should not be used to resolve factual disputes or weigh evidence." C & E Servs., Inc. v. Ashland Inc. , 539 F. Supp. 2d 316, 323 (D.D.C. 2008) (citation omitted).

"In evaluating the admissibility of proffered evidence on a pretrial motion in limine the court must assess whether the evidence is relevant and, if so, whether it is admissible, pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402." Daniels v. District of Columbia , 15 F. Supp. 3d 62, 66 (D.D.C. 2014). Under Rule 402, only relevant evidence is admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 402. "Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Fed. R. Evid. 401. Relevant evidence may still be excluded by a court if "its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Fed. R. Evid. 403.

III. ANALYSIS

A. The Government's Motion to Exclude Evidence of Victims’ Other Sexual Behavior and Sexual Disposition

The Court begins its analysis with the Government's Motion to Exclude Evidence of Victims’ Other Sexual Behavior and Sexual Disposition ("Gov't Rule 412 Mot."), ECF No. 27. The Government intends to call three witnesses who will testify that Mr. Wilkins sexually exploited them for financial gain. Gov't Rule 412 Mot. at 1; see also Hr'g Tr. at 9. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 412 and 403, the Government has moved to preclude Mr. Wilkins from eliciting testimony from these witnesses during cross-examination about their other sexual behavior or their sexual dispositions, including any commercial sex acts engaged in by the witnesses before or after being allegedly exploited by Mr. Wilkins. Id. In response, Mr. Wilkins contends that the exclusion of this evidence with respect to the complainants¹ would violate his constitutional right to present a complete defense. Def.’s Opp'n to Gov't Mot. in Lim. to Exclude Evid. Of Victims’ Other Sexual Behavior and Alleged Predisposition Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 412 and Not. of Intent to Offer 412 Evid. ("Def.’s Rule 412 Opp'n") at 4–6, ECF No. 45.

Federal Rule of Evidence 412 provides that, in a "civil or criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct," both "evidence offered to prove that a victim engaged in other sexual behavior" and "evidence offered to prove a victim's sexual predisposition" is "not admissible."² Fed. R. Evid. 412. The animating purpose behind Rule 412 is "to safeguard the alleged victim against the invasion of privacy, potential embarrassment and sexual stereotyping that is associated with public disclosure of intimate sexual details." Fed. R. Evid. 412 advisory committee's note to 1994 amendment. In a criminal case, there are three exceptions to this rule of exclusion, but the only one argued by Mr. Wilkins is that this evidence is of the type that its "exclusion would violate the defendant's constitutional rights."³ Fed. R. Evid. 412(b)(1)(C). Specifically, Mr. Wilkins claims that excluding evidence of the complainant's commercial sex work will abridge his constitutional right to present a complete defense. See Def.’s Rule 412 Opp'n at 5–6.

A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to present evidence in his own defense. See Crane v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 683, 690, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986). However, "[a] defendant's right to present relevant evidence is not unlimited, but rather is subject to reasonable restrictions." United States v. Scheffer , 523 U.S. 303, 308, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998). For example, the guarantee that a criminal defendant may present evidence in his own defense "extends only to relevant evidence." United States v. Libby , 475 F. Supp. 2d 73, 91 (D.D.C. 2007) ; see also United States v. Solomon , 399 F.3d 1231, 1239 (10th Cir. 2005) ("[A] criminal defendant does not have a constitutional right to present evidence that is not relevant and not material to his defense."). Furthermore, a defendant's right to introduce evidence must also "bow to accommodate other legitimate interests," which includes protecting a victim of sexual misconduct from harassment and unnecessary invasions of privacy. See Michigan v. Lucas , 500 U.S. 145, 149–50, 111 S.Ct. 1743, 114 L.Ed.2d 205 (1991).

In the context of Rule 412, federal courts have found that a victim's participation in prostitution either before or after a defendant uses force, threats, fraud, or coercion to cause the victim to engage in prostitution is irrelevant to the question of whether the defendant committed the crime. See United States v. Cephus , 684 F.3d 703, 708–09 (7th Cir. 2012) ; see also United States v. Roy , 781 F.3d 416, 420 (8th Cir. 2015) ("The victim's participation in prostitution either before or after the time period in the indictment has no relevance to whether [the defendant] beat her, threatened her, and took the money she made from prostitution in order to cause her to engage in commercial sex."). For example, in Cephus , the Seventh Circuit held that a defendant convicted of sex trafficking could not...