United States v. Williams

• Decision Date: 16 December 2016
• Docket Number: No. 13-4700,13-4700
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JUSTIN WILLIAMS, a/k/a NEW YORK ICE, a/k/a PIMP JUICE Justin Williams, Appellant
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JUSTIN WILLIAMS, a/k/a NEW YORK ICE,a/k/a PIMP JUICE Justin Williams, Appellant

No. 13-4700

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Argued October 5, 2016

December 16, 2016

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Crim. No. 2-13-cr-00014-001)

Honorable J. Curtis Joyner, District Judge

BEFORE: SHWARTZ, GREENBERG, and ROTH, Circuit Judges

Zane David Memeger

Bernadette McKeon

Michelle L. Morgan (ARGUED)

Office of United States Attorney

615 Chestnut St., Suite 1250

Philadelphia, PA 19106

Counsel for Appellee

Richard Coughlin

Office of Federal Public Defender

800-840 Cooper Street

Suite 350

Camden, NJ 08102

Alison Brill (ARGUED)

Office of Federal Public Defender

22 South Clinton Avenue

Station Plaza #4, Fourth Floor

Trenton, NJ 08609

Counsel for Appellant

OPINION^*

GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

A jury found defendant-appellant Justin Williams guilty of two counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion under 18 U.S.C. § 1591 arising out of his role as a pimp for two women. In relevant part, that statute criminalized at the time of the offenses an individual's participation in sex trafficking "knowing, or in reckless disregard of the fact, that means of force, threats of force, fraud, coercion . . . , or any combination of such means will be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act." 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a). The jury also convicted Williams of one count of witness tampering pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1512 for sending a letter to one of the sex trafficking victims directing herto recant her statements to the government about the case.

Williams appeals from his convictions claiming that there were four errors at his trial entitling him to a reversal on this appeal. First, he argues that the jury instructions erroneously failed to include the causation element of the sex trafficking offenses linking the sexual conduct to his use of force. In this regard, he contends that a special verdict form that the District Court supplied to the jury minimized the statute's focus on that element of the offenses and thereby compounded the error. Second, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial. Third, he claims that the District Court deprived him of his constitutional right to a complete defense by excluding evidence of a victim's prior acts of prostitution pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 412. Fourth, he asserts that the Court committed plain error by not sua sponte giving the jury an affirmative defense instruction on the witness tampering charge that would have shielded him from conviction if, by lawful means, he encouraged a witness to testify truthfully.

We will affirm the convictions for the following reasons.

II. JURISDICTION

The District Court had jurisdiction in this case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. Following the jury trial and subsequent timely appeal, we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

III. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

On January 10, 2013, a grand jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania indicted Williams on two counts of sex trafficking of two women, Talia and Erika, by force, fraud, or coercion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591.¹ App. at 10. In May 2013, during Williams's incarceration, he sent a letter to Erika professing his love for her and told her to "call the lawyer[,] take back the statement and he'll protect u [sic] from the feds." Id. at 812. He additionally wrote that "[Talia] & you are their case." Id. This letter prompted the grand jury to issue a superseding indictment adding one count of witness tampering pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1512 to the two counts of sex trafficking. Id. at 753.

Before the trial, Williams unsuccessfully moved in limine for an order providing that evidence of Erika's prior commercial sex activity would be admitted at the trial pursuant to an exception to the basic rule in Fed. R. Evid. 412 which excludes specified evidence of a person's prior sexual activity. At the conclusion of the trial the jury found Williams guilty on all three counts of the indictment. Both prior to and after the jury returned its verdict, Williams unsuccessfully moved for a judgment of acquittal.

On January 21, 2015, the District Court sentenced Williams to a 360-month custodial term on each of Counts 1 and 2 and a 240-month custodial term on Count 3, with all terms running concurrently. Id. at 718. The sentence was within the advisory guideline range and Williams does not challenge it on this appeal. Id. The Court also imposed a 10-year supervised release term to follow execution of the custodial terms and ordered Williams to pay restitution to Talia and Erika and a special assessment. Id. at 719, 722, 738-39. Williams timely filed a notice of appeal.

B. Statement of the Facts as Presented at the Trial

At trial, the government presented evidence that Williams acted as a pimp for a number of women, a contention that Williams admitted. Three women—Talia, Erika, and a woman named Ivy whom Williams also controlled—testified about their interactions with Williams as they engaged in commercial sex acts.²

Erika met Williams at a casino in March 2010 and found him attractive. Id. at 284. She had been a prostitute for 12 years, and she testified that when she met Williams she wanted "to pay him" and "be with him." Id. at 286. Erika testified that she worked voluntarily for Williams until her arrest in May 2012. Id. at 285-87.

Talia also met Williams at a casino. She had moved to Philadelphia in July 2010 to live with her godfather and to attend a community college as an "opportunity to start over" after her mother found out that she had been dancing at a club in Atlanta. Id. at 123. But she started dancing again in Philadelphia, and in November 2011, when she was 20 years old, her godfather required her to leave his house. Id. at 126-27. A few days later, she met Williams at a casino. Id. at 127. She testified that he impressed her and she made the personal choice to leave with him. Id. at 125, 181-82.

After Talia travelled with Williams to New York and met two other women who also were working for Williams as prostitutes, he convinced her to do so as well. Id. at 129-31. When she originally considered his proposal, she "burst[] into tears." Williams, however, consoled her and "tried to make it seem like it was okay." Id. at 131. Taliaclaimed that she never previously had been a prostitute. Id. But she had heard Williams hit Erika, and she testified, "I didn't feel like I had many options but to do what he said." Id. At that time, she provided Facebook photos of herself for use in internet advertisements. Id. at 183. Talia stated that she did not abandon her situation or call her mother for a variety of reasons: she was somewhere she never had been before; she did not know the people around her; she had been forced to leave someone's home for the second time and did not know where to go or what to do; she felt ashamed; and she did not want to tell her mother in Atlanta "like a thousand miles away" that she was in her situation. Id. at 132. She "just felt stuck." Id. She testified that she "didn't feel fully that it was [her] choice at the time" that she made the decision to become a prostitute. Id. at 191.

Talia worked for Williams for two or three months. Id. at 132. During that time, Williams took her and other women to a number of places in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. so that they could work as prostitutes. Id. at 133-34. In Philadelphia they stayed in a crack house, which, at least at the outset, was in a filthy condition. Id. at 136. The women found clients through postings on Backpage, a website popular for solicitation, and by walking the streets. Id. at 135. Talia often created website advertisements and listed her own phone number on them. Id. at 138-42. Erika and she purchased prepaid cards with which to buy the advertisements. Id. at 144. When Talia received a call responding to an advertisement, she would tell another woman whom Williams controlled that there was a potential "date" on the phone. Id. at 188. Talia averaged 5-10 "dates" with clients each day, while Erika had 1-10 per day,and Ivy averaged 8-9 "dates" per day. Id. at 145, 268, 353. Talia testified that Williams would be in close proximity during these "dates" and stay with them all day, although Erika denied that he did so. Id. at 133, 148, 312.

Talia, Erika, and Ivy explained Williams's rules. Id. at 132-33, 273, 352-53. Talia and Erika originally had a quota of $1000 per day, which Williams reduced to $700 or $750. Id. at 147, 273. Williams set Ivy's quota at about $500. Id. at 353. Ivy stated that she was told that she could accept only certain prices for her services and Williams directed her not to get into a car with younger men. Id. at 352. All three women testified that Williams required them to give him the money that they received from prostitution, although Talia stated that Williams allowed them to keep some money for food purchases and she acknowledged that he purchased other items for her at times. Id. at 133, 145-46, 210, 269. When they were on "dates" with clients, they could not stay for longer than 15-20 minutes without notifying Williams that they would receive additional payment for their longer stay. Id. at 133; see id. at 352-53. If they failed to update Williams, Talia testified that he would call to ask where they were and what they were doing. Id. at 146. The women needed to shower immediately upon return from a "date" and "wash the streets off." Id. at 133. The longest time that Erika worked continuously was around 18 hours, while Ivy's longest period of working without a break was 15 hours. Id. at 269, 354. But Talia once worked 25 hours straight. Id. at 147. Williams did not give them regular time off from work, but he would not send them out to work if he was in a good mood. Id. at 147.

Talia and Erika witnessed...