U.S. v. Groce

In prosecution on sex trafficking charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in precluding defendant from presenting evidence of victims’ prior prostitution histories, even though defendant claimed that such evidence was relevant as to issue as to whether he was aware that force would be used to cause victims to prostitute for commercial sex. While defendant argued that he believed that victims were prostituting for him voluntarily, Rule 412(a) precludes defendant from offering evidence to prove that victims engaged in other sexual behavior, and under Carson, 870 F.3d 584, fact that victims had previously worked as prostitutes is irrelevant to defendant’s mens rea for sex trafficking crime. Fact that govt. elicited from one victim that she had never prostituted before meeting with defendant did not require different result, where defendant had opportunities to impeach said victim on other grounds. Record also showed that defendant knew that force, threats of force and coercion were used to cause victims to engage in commercial sex, such that any error instructing jury on definition of criminal recklessness did not require new trial under plain-error standard.