Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The United States hereby submits this trial brief for the assistance of the Court in
February 1, 2010. In this brief, the United States summarizes the Government’s
anticipated evidence and discusses applicable case law interpreting the statutes charged in
the indictment.
2421; one count of Sex Trafficking by Force, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591; two
counts of Attempted Sex Trafficking by Force, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1594; and one
1
Case 3:09-cr-00145-N Document 94 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 2 of 14
charged have pleaded guilty as charged in Count One of the Indictment. Defendants
Preston Petitt and Kenya Thomas, as part of their plea agreements, have agreed to
cooperate with the Government and may be called to testify for the Government at trial.
transported them in interstate commerce for the purpose of prostitution, and if they
resisted, used force, fraud, or coercion in attempts to compel them to work as prostitutes
BACKGROUND
WILLIAMS had been operating as a “pimp” in the State of Texas since 2003 and
had, in 2006, expanded his enterprise into a multi-state operation, including the web-sites
for assisting a pimp with the management of his operation. THOMAS assisted
WILLIAMS was arrested in the State of Maryland on July 6, 2006, and charged
2
Case 3:09-cr-00145-N Document 94 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 3 of 14
with two counts of prostitution and one count of operating a prostitution business. In an
www.PrivateBash.com and declared that “there is nothing wrong with taking proceeds
Jerman recovered numerous receipts for hotel rooms, wire transfers, and airline travel,
suggestive of a prostitution enterprise. The majority of the receipts were in the names of
There are five sex trafficking victims named in the indictment, all adult women
who are single mothers of small children. Between May 2006 and August 2007,
WILLIAMS advertised K.D., as well as C.L., T.S., THOMAS, R. R. and R.F., as escorts
available for dating services at locations in and around Dallas, the District of Columbia,
women, specifically single mothers, from troubled backgrounds and, if necessary, to use
a combination of deception, fraud, coercion, threats and physical violence to compel them
evidence will show that WILLIAMS transported the young women within interstate
affected interstate commerce through his use of cell phones, computers, the internet,
1
T.S. is not named in the indictment, but may testify on behalf of the
Government during the trial.
3
Case 3:09-cr-00145-N Document 94 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 4 of 14
WILLIAMS required each young woman to earn a daily quota of cash and, if
operating out of town, to transfer all of the money to him via electronic wire. In turn, he
deposited those funds into accounts in his name and the name of “Redd2Salon.”
Petitt (“PETITT”), who cooked, cleaned and provided au pair services for WILLIAMS’
and THOMAS’ children, as well as the children of the women being prostituted by
young women he exploited received next to nothing. After T.S. stopped working for
became desperate to recruit more girls, even taking action to get THOMAS fired from a
legitimate source of employment and ensure her availability to prostitute for him.
Subsequently, WILLIAMS reverted to the use of brute force in his attempts to obtain
Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, provides in pertinent part that if two or
more people conspire to commit an offense against the Untied States and one or more of
such persons does any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, he shall be guilty of an
4
Case 3:09-cr-00145-N Document 94 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 5 of 14
To obtain a conviction on Count One, the United States must prove the following:
Second: That the Defendant, knowing the unlawful purpose of the plan,
Third: That one of the conspirators, during the existence of the conspiracy,
Fourth: That such “overt act” was knowingly committed at or about the time
conspiracy.
Regarding Count One, the Government will seek to prove that WILLIAMS held
himself out to be a “pimp” in the prostitution “game” and that he, THOMAS and PETITT
individuals within interstate commerce, i.e., within the “Boston-DC-Dallas” service area
established through the testimony THOMAS and PETITT, as well as the testimony of
young women who were transported by WILLIAMS during the course of the conspiracy.
5
Case 3:09-cr-00145-N Document 94 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 6 of 14
Title 18, United States Code, section 2421 provides in pertinent part that whoever
knowingly transports any individual in interstate commerce, with intent that such
individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be
charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be guilty of an offense against
In order to obtain a conviction against Williams, the United States must prove the
following:
commerce, and
Second: That at the time of such transportation the defendant intended that
sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal
offense.
The Mann Act case against WILLIAMS is exceptionally strong. The testimony of the
including out-of-state arrest records and the documentary evidence collected by the
regarding his prostitution operation, including wire transfers, hotel receipts and airline
ticket stubs. He also required his prostitutes to keep records of their prostitution activity
6
Case 3:09-cr-00145-N Document 94 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 7 of 14
Title 18 United States Code, Section 1591, provides in pertinent part that any
affecting interstate commerce, either while knowing that force, fraud, or coercion would
be used to cause such person to engage in a commercial sex act, or while knowing that
such person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a
commercial sex act, shall be guilty of an offense against the United States.
In order to obtain a conviction against Williams, the United States must prove the
following:
Second: That the defendant also knew either or both of the following:
act; and/or
years of age
7
Case 3:09-cr-00145-N Document 94 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 8 of 14
The first and third elements are easily established through the testimony of the victims
and corroborated by the documentation of their out-of-state prostitution arrests and the
numerous hotel receipts and web-site advertisements that clearly establish the interstate
character of the offenses.2 The second element of Section 1591 requires the Government
to prove that the defendant knew that force, fraud, or coercion would be used to cause the
victim to engage in a commercial sex act. A detailed discussion of these acts is set forth
below.
Force and fraud are not statutorily defined, and thus have their ordinary meaning.
restraint against any person,” or “any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person
to believe that failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical
restraint against any person.” 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(2)(A)-(B). The term “serious harm” as
used in Section 1591 includes both physical and non-physical types of harm, as long as
the defendant believes the threatened harm is sufficient under the circumstances to
compel or coerce the victim’s services. H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-939 at 101 (2000), 2000
2
“Commercial sex act” is defined as “any sex act, on account of which anything of
value is given to or received by any person.” 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1). A “thing of value” is to be
construed broadly, United States v. Williams, 705 F.2d 603, 623 (2d Cir. 1983) (construing
“anything of value” language broadly in context of bribery statute), and because the thing of
value may be received by “any person,” it is immaterial whether the victim performing the
commercial sex act received any of the thing of value exchanged
8
Case 3:09-cr-00145-N Document 94 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 9 of 14
fraud, or coercion to cause a victim to engage in commercial sex acts, the fact-finder may
consider not only the totality of the defendant’s conduct, but also the defendant’s
knowledge of the victim’s special vulnerabilities, including any aspect of the alleged
victim’s background, station in life, physical and mental condition, experience, education
or socioeconomic status, or any inequalities between the alleged victim and the defendant,
which the defendant knew that he and any others acting in concert with him could exploit.
H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-939 at 101 (2000), 2000 WL 1479163 (Oct. 5, 2000)
(forced labor)); United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 948, 952 (1988) (under related
statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1584, “the vulnerabilities of the victim are relevant in determining
whether the physical or legal coercion or threats thereof could plausibly have compelled
Although Sections 1591 and 1589 cover more subtle and varied forms of coercion
than section 1584, the involuntary servitude statute, and have elements that are more
readily provable, the plain language of Sections 1591 and 1589, coupled with the
legislative history of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”), makes it clear
that the same principles of law apply to all three statutes. Under §§ 1591 and 1589, as
previously held under § 1584, the Government does not need to link each of the threats
9
Case 3:09-cr-00145-N Document 94 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 10 of 14
prostitution she performed. If any victim was threatened with or made to suffer certain
punishment or to create a climate of fear that overcame her will and compelled her
service, that is sufficient. United States v. Alzanki, 54 F.3d 994 (1st Cir 1995) (“climate
his wife); United States v. King, 840 F.2d 1276, 1281 (6th Cir. 1988) (force, threats, and
other coercion created "pervasive climate of fear"); United States v. Warren, 772 F.2d
827, 833-34 (11th Cir. 1985) (finding "grotesque" the "use, or threatened use, of physical
force to create a climate of fear"); United States v. Harris, 701 F.2d 1095, 1100 (4th Cir.
1983) (evidence that the defendant beat people other than victim was relevant because it
contributed to a "reign of physical terror"); United States v. Booker, 655 F.2d 562, 566
The Government also need not prove physical restraint – such as the use of chains,
barbed wire or locked doors – to establish sex trafficking. Similarly, the fact that a victim
acting in concert with him, using force, fraud or coercion, made a victim reasonably
believe that she could not leave. United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 2004). A
3
The Government will present limited “climate of fear” testimony. For instance,
WILLIAMS bragged about the violent beatings he doled out to former prostitutes as a means of
keeping his current prostitutes in line.
10
Case 3:09-cr-00145-N Document 94 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 11 of 14
victim who reasonably believes she cannot leave is under no affirmative duty to try to
escape. Booker, 655 F.2d at 567 (4th Cir. 1981)(holding that the trial court “should not
have charged the jury that it would have to find that the defendants’ use of force
That a victim may have initially acquiesced to provide services for a defendant
does not preclude a finding that the victim was compelled to engage in prostitution
thereafter. For example, if a victim willingly began to engage in prostitution, then wanted
to withdraw, but was forced to remain and perform acts of prostitution against her will by
plan intended to cause her to believe that non-performance would result in serious harm
to her or another person, then her service became involuntary. United States v. Shackney,
333 F.2d 475, 484 n. 13 (2d Cir. 1964); United States v. Mussry, 726 F.2d 1448, 1454 n. 6
(9th Cir. 1984) (“Even though a person may come to a job voluntarily, subsequent
States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988); United States v. Bibbs, 564 F.2d 1165 (5th Cir.
1977) (affirming conviction where victims initially agreed to work for defendants).
Finally, whether a victim received or was permitted to keep some money from
engaging in prostitution is not determinative of the question of whether she was a victim
of sex trafficking. Bradley, 390 F.3d at 154. In other words, if she was compelled to
provide services against her will, her service was involuntary even if she was paid or
11
Case 3:09-cr-00145-N Document 94 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 12 of 14
compensated. Heflin v. Sanford, 142 F.2d 798, 799 (5th Cir. 1944); Jobson v. Henne, 355
Title 18, Unites States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) provides in pertinent part
that whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the
financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity
with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity shall be guilty of
To obtain a conviction against WILLIAMS, the United States must prove the
following:
and
Fifth: While acting with the intent to promote the carrying on of the
Regarding Count Eleven, WILLIAMS used the proceeds obtained through illegal
12
Case 3:09-cr-00145-N Document 94 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 13 of 14
activity, i.e., violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421, to maintain and promote his criminal
proceeds from the prostitution activity of the women who worked for him at
CONCLUSION
Thus, the Government will present a wide range of evidence to establish all of the
JAMES T. JACKS
THOMAS E. PEREZ
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
United States Department of Justice
13
Case 3:09-cr-00145-N Document 94 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 14 of 14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 22, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Texas using the electronic
filing system of the Court. The electronic case filing system will send a “Notice of
14