three women were recruited from rural china who were on educated and not well educated and through a friend or relative they came from the same small village learned that they could go to america and earn more money they came to site pan and they were picked up by someone acting on behalf of the recruiter and first taken to a hotel and they were taken to a karaoke bar called the holiday where the same person who picked them up told them you'll be expected to do three things and that is to entertain recruitment it was just by way of background the three women initially did not engage in prostitution they only serve drinks and sang songs and now become important later it's not entirely clear from the record from the spot men sent them away or were terminated their their relationship they moved to an apartment on their own and sorry they that she  first picked out in the move to another apartment in pretrial discovery the government disclosed that the three statements by each of the women and importantly for the purposes of this pill they admitted that they engage in prostitution after returning to them returned one went out on her own and in fact they negotiated about the  price how much they would be paid and they came back there after they wrote a letter asking the u s government to prosecute the recruiters did not mention bachmann after a multi week trial the jury was in paneled after several days of deliberation they came back with a note saying that they could not reach a verdict after an allen charge was read the jury continued to deliberate and they came back with a not guilty on two of the counts and guilty on one of the counts so that surprising because the three witnesses for the government essentially told the same story and the government the defendant then made a motion for acquittal after the jury verdict which was evidence of a connection to interstate commerce well it's not exactly an out of state bank it's bank of hawaii which was doing business in sight and the check was drawn on an account on site and deposited into an account pan what was stipulated to was that the bank cleared the check in hawaii that's an act done by the bank not by the defendant and  so it seems to me you're mixing up two arguments here let's say it was clear that there were ten checks drawn on a bank in new york and it was deposited in new york so you don't have the ambiguity of whether hawaii  herself had to do something interesting so we're argument that even if there were ten checks drawn on a bank in new york and that that doesn't matter because she didn't do it personally well state check they traveled out of state and then deposited the check there there the defendant clearly did something it wasn't just positing a check it was also flying to another state and passing a check for counsel i'm why do we even have to think about the check of the john  here these women were from outside the country now miss bachmann was not responsible for bringing them into side pan but once they were inside pan she she engages in a number of acts to force them into prostitution why isn't that a sufficient connection to foreign commerce and satisfy the statute irrespective of where the checks cleared because once the recruitment happened it was finished they were down then on site then and other acts were completely within sight pan there's no she didn't do any predicate act as required by the statute that affected even foreign commerce they showed up at her door brought by somebody else  chinese right but this is but this is a matter of affecting foreign commerce in a way that the supreme court has has used that term is not why isn't it i mean we've got even even if she doesn't get the even if she doesn't meet the girls and doesn't know the girls are coming until they get to the the standard is going to nova but first our first argument is that who for twelve regulates and does not allow in evidence of other sexual conduct and other within the community rule says well you know we've got some flexibility here and if it's intrinsic to the time then it's not other sexual conduct directly i know you're limited on time let me cut directly to my question so with respect to the four twelve them you know they sort of feel like the game is done they're sort of sort of tarnished and therefore there's no marginal downside to engaging in prostitution which is the only way they had of supporting themselves inside and was part of the problem in the first place so that the post a conduct is really irrelevant pre arrest might you might have an argument but that's not your argument at all you know it is absolutely there was a long period nest occasion and the government when they indicted me spock and deliberately cut off th your point was well if they gave prostitution after arrest then that's what you're trying to get introduced was that they returned to prostitution after bachmann was out of the picture you know at least after they went to the apartment and then and then came back right yes which we had  yet i don't think i put it to her to judge by these purposes that i don't think that matters very much to your point i think is that they have the brothel they sort of sort of speak and got some distance from your client yes and then at some point has to go back to the same place into the same person right by this question really goes to and i have the same question which is if these these three women who didn't speak english and who'd been had had the legal marble what else were they supposed to do well there were there were three one went off on her own to there's no allegation of force how so i have a completely different question both parties time argue the merits of this but that was not the ground for the district court's decision to exclude the evidence it was excluded on procedural grounds that the motion failed but the court was concerned with a lack of specificity and particular the lack of description as to which victim was involved and the evidence so that the victims would be present for the hearing as required by the rule so regardless of the merits that's not the ground on which the district court acted so why did the district court abused its discretion and declining to allow the evidence for failure to comply with the procedural requirements of the rule well because first of all rule for twelve does not apply because it's another sexual conduct it's in transit that's one argument in the second it should've been excluded on the underneath the constitutional grounds i mean the and she basically said well yeah you missed that the time requirement that that i said maybe judge not the time she excused today she said yes she did was to fine and said let's move on but she and then she said the rule requires specificity in describing the proposed evidence and that wasn't done and therefore she wasn't going to allow and whatever it was that she didn't know what it was just you just argue the merits without joining the problem at hand it seems to me which was the basis for your i only have a minute left if if if i could move on to my my last argument and then try to deserve some time for rebuttal will give you some of that and that is the vulnerable victim enhanced when two points are basically to get their district court found that these women were chinese weren't familiar with pan didn't speak the language were an educated and and were at an economic disadvantage and the legislative history of the trafficking victims protection act which is ninety one days is part findings that traffickers primarily target women disproportionately affected by poverty lack of access to education lack of economic opportunities in country of origin traffickers who are women and girls into the network through false promises of decent working conditions traffickers often transport victims from their home communities to unfamiliar destinations including foreign countries away from friends religious institutions leaving the victims defenseless and vulnerable  appellate she was also convicted on the theory that she participated in a venture and that she profit from that that venture is the venture that brought those women over from china so there's your foreign commerce that's clear we also have to check this out of the government mention the foreign commerce clause any point in that it's an indictment your honor and i believe it's an injury instructions i don't know if that was specifically advocated by the government but i've heard the phrase foreign foreign commerce disproportionate and it says that the trial court must weigh the interests in the defendant's particular case including consideration of the probate of value of the evidence that that's what needs to happen in order to make sure the defendant sixth amendment rights are that against the rape shield laws kind of intent and so that's what i'm trying to get as my knowledge is more limited in the record of the courts finding cases just mentioned and i actually met with opposing counsel before we were both sure of i guess the status of to two thousand and eight they go back and i believe march of two thousand and nine over and over says well that's relevant to show what happened in arkansas i just disagree because i just don't understand that argument for a number of reasons one being the crime is let's say eager to become prostitutes or happy to become prostitutes so nobody had to convince them or defrocked or coerced i think that's his argument for an hour so what's your response to that well i just i know that's his argument but if we if we unpack if we really wrap our brains around it how does that make sense a crime is complete when the predicate act is made with knowledge when she recruits them when she transports them and she chains and or maintains i'm right here the crimes committed she is liable these cases i think any typical human trafficking victim eventual either will is broken and they start living a lifestyle that they never thought they would have but it's the only way to survive and i think it's a wiki into a domestic violence victim if the victim is abused by the defendant but goes back months later is that evidence that it never occurred you know those are those are facts and sort of just that occur in these types of situations so i think victims trust human trafficking going back to their traffic especially when they have no work authorization they've been forward it's a dangerous place to live out they don't speak they don't know anyone they don't speak the language they go back that is completely common but we have case law in this circuit in other circuit irrelevant i think the argument is much stronger for post indictments acts of prostitution i'd like to ask you about the enhancement for particularly vulnerable victims and why where were these unpublished case us we venezuela which speaks to many of the issues that we are dealing with today said while the legislative findings of the trafficking victims protection act which includes fifteen ninety one an it is the case here and i will hear the district court's findings which are outlined in the government's brief show the reasons given by the district court in applying the handsome and i'll just highlight the ones that i believe are above those that are outlined in twenty two seventy one i want the legal status of these of these women or i'll just stick to one x l or refer to as i saw she had no lawful status she was on a tourist visa which did not allow her to work a fact that was repeatedly told to her by the defendant you cannot leave you will have nothing to do there is no work for you out there other than nest she was kept under with a district court phrase lacking she watched it all time supervise at all times and she was reportedly told that she was nowhere else to run and the defendant repeatedly told her about the dangers of the community inside and about the story of the little child getting hung o either english or chinese and she was especially educated and she really didn't really speak mandarin especially these people skate i'll use that word i don't need to be protective but they escaped by getting a note to the local police department right so who felt that now if there was a testimony about how that really happened i just the implications it could have happened earlier so i just want to give you a fair chance to respond i know i'm not familiar with that and i  just wouldn't say i don't think that's a fair application i mean a fair inference because again that would be nine months after arriving there you know just by living on this island leaving the karaoke bar to answer your question judge christian the court absolutely did not weigh it she ruled from the bench there's no written order and the sum and substance of it is at this time based on what has already been filed and opportunity that would be given to the government is denied there was no there was no way of any constitutional i know but no i couldn't i don't know you know you are to be candid and this is what mr baki and i discussed it appears that the judge perhaps in a chambers meeting modified that order to some extent that there is absolutely nothing in the record but the rule the rules that suggest that the evidence must be admitted there's a lot more of it she said also she's talks about how her declaration is conclusory we're dealing with three victims when we discuss the issue of the rule fifteen deposition i pointed out that the only names i heard and i'm skipping some words ana and helen and no one has attached those names to any of the three victims that are named in the indictment so your declaration doesn't help me pinpoint the information as to retrieve them and how it's relevant to the case so on the face of the emotional declaration it's you know it fails so i don't understand how that's a violation of your rights if you haven't demonstrated relevance by to the court but again your honor there was a procedural remedy here in which the court could have said well i'm going to let you amend because you filed it the trial counsel did file a timely within me the time requirements of the statu them to amend and certainly the government was the court went on to say well you know i don't want to prejudice the defendant i mean the government but the government knew precisely what evidence it was it was the self admitted statements and about the  first names that was from a deposition that the government conducted of that witness peter layout and which was later admitted into evidence and mr lay out never mentioned any of the government witnesses he just used first names helen came over they were the government never connected those names with with who the actual government witnesses were but that would have been the the remedy to say ok because the government knows exactly what what they're talking about there's going to be no prejudice in the government therefore there should be i should grant your motion to amend and that way we could have gotten the  member right there and again the government would be prejudiced because they knew exactly what the defender was talking about