UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MICHAEL LAWRENCE MAYNES, JR
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Wilkinson, Jan. 18, 2018,
Sex trafficking – Sex trafficking by fraud requires “material fraud,” but does not require that the fraud actually caused a person to engage in a commercial sex act.
Facts:
In 2015, Maynes was indicted for conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, five counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, and one count of kidnapping.
At trial, evidence was presented that Maynes tricked women into working as prostitutes for him:
– One woman left her child with Maynes’ girlfriend while she engaged in prostitution. Her son then disappeared and she was informed that Maynes would decide when she could see him again and she wouldn’t see him again unless she sent more money to Maynes’ girlfriend.
– A second woman was romanced into moving to Virginia to be with Maynes. Once there, she was “surprised to learn that Maynes wanted to prostitute her.” He refused to let her return home from the hotel where she was prostituting until she met her $1,500 daily earnings quota.
– A third was told that if she worked for Maynes as a prostitute, she would receive a home as well as half of her prostitution proceeds. This did not happen.
– A fourth woman was promised a car and home as well as a share of her earnings if she worked for Maynes as a prostitute. Once she began doing so, Maynes failed to follow through.
Maynes tried to introduce evidence that the women were prostitutes already, but the trial judge did not allow him to do this.
At the conclusion of the trial, Maynes requested a jury instruction that fraud requires that a “specific act of fraud must have been material to cause a person to engage in a commercial sex act.” This instruction was denied.
Maynes was convicted of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking and four counts of sex trafficking. He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of 420 months with restitution of $405,400.
Maynes appealed, arguing that the trial judge should have given his jury instruction and also should have allowed him to ask about the prior sex lives of the women he was accused of trafficking.
Held: The Fourth Circuit held that the government didn’t need to show that the women wouldn’t have prostituted themselves without Maynes’ false promises. Instead, the government only had to show that Maynes told a significant lie with the intent of getting these women to prostitute themselves. Convictions upheld.
Sex trafficking – Whoever knowingly “recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, or maintains by any means a person” knowing, or in reckless disregard of the fact, that …fraud… will be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act
Sex Trafficking- Materiality is a requirement for an inducement by fraud. Something is “material” if it is significant or important.
From the case: Although Maynes denied at trial that he made promises to the women, that he withheld children from their mothers, and that he provided the women with drugs, the jury was entitled to disbelieve his testimony in light of the other evidence.
Confrontation Clause – the Confrontation Clause “guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.”
From the Case: Maynes’ desire to introduce evidence that the women were working as prostitutes before he became involved had “only the most marginal relevance to the core issue in Maynes’s trial: not what the victims’ sexual history may have been, but whether the defendant in this case employed force, threats of force, fraud, coercion, or any combination of these to cause the women to commit commercial sex acts.”