You are on page 1of 14

Case 3:09-cr-00145-N Document 94 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 1 of 14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §


§
v. § No. 3:09cr145
§
MARCUS CHOICE WILLIAMS §

TRIAL BRIEF OF THE UNITED STATES

The United States hereby submits this trial brief for the assistance of the Court in

the upcoming trial of the above-captioned matter, currently scheduled to commence on

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.

Marcus Choice Williams (“WILLIAMS”), the remaining defendant in the eleven

count Superseding Indictment (hereinafter “the Indictment”) is charged with the

following crimes: One count of Conspiracy to Transport for Prostitution, pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 371; six counts of Transportation for Prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

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

count of Money Laundering, in violation of U.S.C. § 1956(A)(i). While the Superseding

1
Case 3:09-cr-00145-N Document 94 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 2 of 14

Indictment (the “Indictment”) charged three co-defendants, two of those originally

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.

WILLIAMS (a.k.a. “Cross Country Redd”) is currently scheduled for trial on

February 1, 2010. The indictment charges Williams with running an interstate

prostitution scheme through which he enticed vulnerable women into prostitution,

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

for his financial benefit.

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

www. PrivateBash.com and www.callgirlstogo.com. At all times relevant to the

indictment, co-defendant Kenya Thomas (“THOMAS”), the mother of two of

WILLIAMS’ children, acted as WILLIAMS’ “bottom,” the prostitute most responsible

for assisting a pimp with the management of his operation. THOMAS assisted

WILLIAMS by mentoring new recruits and monitoring-answering-referring solicitations

from the web-sites.

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

interview following his arrest, WILLIAMS admitted that he owned

www.PrivateBash.com and declared that “there is nothing wrong with taking proceeds

from an escort service.” During a search of WILLIAMS’ loft-apartment, Officer Nick

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

WILLIAMS, THOMAS and T.S.1 , a prostitute who worked for WILLIAMS.

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,

and Boston, Massachusetts. WILLIAMS’ modus operandi was to recruit vulnerable

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

to engage in prostitution or to continue engaging in prostitution on his behalf. The

evidence will show that WILLIAMS transported the young women within interstate

commerce to engage in commercial sex acts. Moreover, WILLIAMS’ illegal activities

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

hotels and rental cars to facilitate his illegal scheme.

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.”

WILLIAMS also secured the services of a self-named “butler,” co-defendant Preston

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

WILLIAMS. WILLIAMS made thousands of dollars in prostitution profits, while the

young women he exploited received next to nothing. After T.S. stopped working for

WILLIAMS and his supply of prostitutes dwindled, WILLIAMS cash-flow suffered. He

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

women for continued prostitution on his behalf.

APPLICABLE LAW AND DISCUSSION

I. Conspiracy: 18 U.S.C. Section 371

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

offense against the United States.

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:

First: That two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a

mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and

unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment;

Second: That the Defendant, knowing the unlawful purpose of the plan,

willfully joined in it;

Third: That one of the conspirators, during the existence of the conspiracy,

knowingly committed at least one of the “overt acts” described in

the indictment; and

Fourth: That such “overt act” was knowingly committed at or about the time

alleged, in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the

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

directly and/or indirectly transported, or aided and abetted the transportation, of

individuals within interstate commerce, i.e., within the “Boston-DC-Dallas” service area

advertised on www.PrivateBash.com, for the purpose of prostitution. This will be

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.

II. Mann Act - Transportation for Prostitution: 18 U.S.C. § 2421:

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

the United States.

In order to obtain a conviction against Williams, the United States must prove the

following:

First: That the defendant knowingly transported an individual in interstate

commerce, and

Second: That at the time of such transportation the defendant intended that

the person so transported would engage in prostitution or in any

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

young women transported by WILLIAMS is corroborated by substantial evidence,

including out-of-state arrest records and the documentary evidence collected by the

Montgomery County Police Department. Moreover, WILLIAMS kept meticulous records

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

and this activity.

6
Case 3:09-cr-00145-N Document 94 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 7 of 14

II. Sex Trafficking: 18 U.S.C. § 1591

Title 18 United States Code, Section 1591, provides in pertinent part that any

person who recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains a person, in or

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:

First: That the defendant knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored,

transported or obtained a person whom the Defendant knew would

be caused to engage in a commercial sex act.

Second: That the defendant also knew either or both of the following:

(a) that force, fraud, or coercion

would be used to cause the person

to engage in the commercial sex

act; and/or

(b) that the person was under 18

years of age

Third: Finally, that the offense was in or affecting interstate commerce.

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.

A. Force, Fraud and Coercion

Force and fraud are not statutorily defined, and thus have their ordinary meaning.

Coercion is statutorily defined, in relevant part, as “threats of serious harm to or physical

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

WL 1479163 (Oct. 5, 2000); 22 U.S.C. § 7101(b)(congressional findings and purposes

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

relating to enactment of section 1589). In considering whether a defendant used force,

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)

(explaining relevance of victim’s vulnerabilities under sister statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1589

(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

the victim to serve”).

B. Principles of Law Relating to §§ 1591

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

allegedly made or actions allegedly taken against a victim to particular acts of

prostitution she performed. If any victim was threatened with or made to suffer certain

consequences in connection with the services each purportedly rendered, either as

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

of fear” enhanced by victim’s witnessing incident involving defendant’s physical abuse of

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

(4th Cir. 1981) (assaults and threats created “climate of fear”).3

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

may have had an opportunity to escape is irrelevant if the defendant, or anyone

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

effectively denied the possibility of escape to the victims.

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

force, fraud, or coercion or through threats of serious harm, or by a scheme, pattern, or

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

coerced service constitutes involuntary servitude.”), overruled on other grounds, United

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

F.2d 129, 132 n.3 (2d Cir. 1966).

III. Money Laundering: 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i)

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

proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a

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

an offense against the United States.

To obtain a conviction against WILLIAMS, the United States must prove the

following:

First: That the defendant conducted or attempted to conduct;

Second: A financial transaction;

Third: Knowing that the property involved in such a financial transaction

represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity;

Fourth: Which in fact involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity;

and

Fifth: While acting with the intent to promote the carrying on of the

specified unlawful activity.

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

enterprise. He made and directed to be made a number of financial transactions using

proceeds from the prostitution activity of the women who worked for him at

www.PrivateBash.com, including wire transfers and deposits into a bank account

established in the name of a “Redd2Salon.” WILLIAMS then used these proceeds to

promote his illegal enterprise.

CONCLUSION

Thus, the Government will present a wide range of evidence to establish all of the

elements of the charged crimes.

Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of January, 2010.

JAMES T. JACKS

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

THOMAS E. PEREZ
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
United States Department of Justice

/s/ Myesha K. Braden

MYESHA K. BRADEN - DC #461485


U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Patrick Henry Bld., 5 th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel: 202.305.1483
Fax: 202.514.8336

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

Electronic Filing” to the following attorney of record:

Scott Palmer, attorney of record for Marcus Williams

/s/ Myesha K. Braden


MYESHA K. BRADEN
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division

14

You might also like