Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02358/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02358-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alex A. Campbell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted February 3, 2016*

Decided February 4, 2016 

Before 

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge 

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 15-2358 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

ALEX A. CAMPBELL, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division. 

No. 10 CR 0026 

Robert W. Gettleman, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

 Alex Campbell preyed on young women who were in the United States 

unlawfully, first gaining their trust through promises of immigration benefits and 

financial protection, and then coercing them to work for him as prostitutes. A jury 

convicted him on eleven counts of obtaining labor and services of others by force, 

serious harm, and abuse, 18 U.S.C. § 1589; concealing, harboring, and shielding 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral 

argument is unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.

See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

Case: 15-2358 Document: 27 Filed: 02/04/2016 Pages: 4
No. 15-2358 Page 2 

undocumented aliens for commercial advantage, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), 

(a)(1)(A)(v)(II), and (a)(1)(B)(i); concealing identity and immigration documents, 18 

U.S.C. § 1592(a); sex trafficking, 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a); and extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). 

The district court—after granting Campbell’s motion for acquittal on one count of 

concealing immigration documents—sentenced him to life in prison. We affirmed his 

convictions and sentence on direct appeal, see United States v. Campbell, 770 F.3d 556 (7th 

Cir. 2014), and now Campbell appeals from the denial of a motion for a new trial. That 

motion is based on what Campbell says is new evidence that, before one of the women 

met him, she had entered a sham marriage in hopes of gaining residency. We agree with 

the district court that this accusation lacks an evidentiary foundation and, thus, could 

not warrant a new trial. 

 Our opinion in Campbell’s direct appeal details the facts underlying his 

convictions, see Campbell, 770 F.3d at 559–68, but some background is necessary here. 

Briefly, Campbell lured undocumented women into prostitution by promising them 

housing and legitimate jobs at his massage parlors. Once he had gained their trust he 

isolated them from their families and friends and seized their identification, immigration 

documents, and money. He gave the women new names and branded them with tattoos. 

He then physically and emotionally abused them and threatened to have them deported 

if they did not have sex with him or others for money. 

One of Campbell’s victims was Masha, a citizen of Belarus. Campbell had met 

Masha when she was 20 years old and attending school for massage therapy. When he 

learned that Masha had overstayed her visa, Campbell offered to get her a green card for 

$14,500. She gave Campbell her passport and identifying information and promised to 

pay him $1,000 each week, in addition to working in his massage parlors without pay. 

When she fell behind with her payments, Campbell demanded that Masha have sex with 

him and his business partner as punishment. Afterward he continued coercing her to 

have sex, and even after she had paid the full $14,500 Campbell extorted thousands of 

dollars more by imposing “fines” for misbehavior. Eventually Masha contacted 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which led to an investigation and 

Campbell’s arrest. 

During discovery the government wrote Campbell’s attorney saying that Masha 

had been married and divorced before meeting Campbell. The government added that it 

did not have reason to think that the marriage had been fraudulent. The government 

also disclosed that some victims who would testify at trial intended to apply for a T-visa 

(a temporary visa authorizing a victim of human trafficking to remain and work in the 

Case: 15-2358 Document: 27 Filed: 02/04/2016 Pages: 4
No. 15-2358 Page 3 

United States). Masha testified at trial, along with other victims, and Campbell was 

convicted of ten counts related to sex trafficking, extortion, concealing immigration 

documents, and shielding and harboring undocumented aliens for commercial gain. 

While his direct criminal appeal was pending, Campbell learned about a pair of 

notices issued many years earlier by immigration authorities informing Masha that her 

two applications to adjust status had been rejected, one because she had not been present 

in the United States before 1982 and the other because her application was incomplete. 

Masha had submitted those applications before her marriage, and in his motion for a 

new trial Campbell argued that the two notices prove that Masha had reacted to the 

denials of relief by entering into a sham marriage as another way of adjusting status. 

This information, said Campbell, was concealed by the government and could have been 

used at trial to attack Masha’s credibility. He added that the notices further prove that 

Masha was willing to lie at trial to obtain immigration benefits. 

A district court is permitted to vacate a conviction and grant a new trial based on 

newly discovered evidence “if the interest of justice so requires.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 33. A 

defendant seeking a new trial under this rule “must provide evidence that (1) came to 

his knowledge only after trial; (2) could not have been discovered sooner through the 

exercise of due diligence; (3) is material and not merely impeaching or cumulative; and 

(4) would probably lead to an acquittal in the event of a retrial.” United States v. 

Westmoreland, 712 F.3d 1066, 1072 (7th Cir. 2013); see United States v. Hagler, 700 F.3d 1091, 

1101 (7th Cir. 2012). The district court concluded that Campbell’s claim of newly 

discovered evidence of a sham marriage fails this test. Campbell had known before trial 

about Masha’s marriage, the court reasoned, and all that is “new” is Campbell’s 

conjecture of fraud based on the immigration notices. And those notices are not evidence 

of a sham marriage, the court explained, because neither of the underlying applications 

depended on Masha’s marital status. In fact, the court noted, Masha had used her 

maiden name on both applications. Moreover, even if Campbell actually had proof that 

Masha’s marriage was a sham, the court continued, that evidence would merely attack 

her credibility, which would not be a ground for a new trial. See Westmoreland, 712 F.3d 

at 1072; Hagler, 700 F.3d at 1101; United States v. Ervin, 540 F.3d 623, 631–32 (7th Cir. 

2008). Nor would such evidence likely lead to acquittal, the court concluded, as Masha 

was just one of many witnesses who testified about Campbell’s extensive criminal 

conduct. 

On appeal Campbell challenges the district court’s conclusion that he did not 

present any evidence, much less “new” evidence, of a sham marriage. But we agree with 

Case: 15-2358 Document: 27 Filed: 02/04/2016 Pages: 4
No. 15-2358 Page 4 

the court that Campbell’s motion for a new trial rests wholly on conjecture about 

Masha’s marriage. The two notices predate Masha’s marriage and convey that her 

applications to adjust status had been rejected for reasons having nothing to do with her 

marital status. And even if Campbell could show that Masha had been in a sham 

marriage, it is unclear how that evidence would have affected her credibility. The jury 

heard evidence that Masha wanted to obtain a visa and, for that reason, had agreed to 

Campbell’s proposal to get her one—surely not by lawful means—for $14,500. Thus, 

further evidence that Masha had entered a sham marriage hoping to obtain immigration 

benefits by a different unlawful route would be “merely impeaching and cumulative,” 

and not a ground for a new trial. See Erwin, 540 F.3d at 631. Moreover, the district court 

recognized that undermining Masha’s credibility would be unlikely to lead to 

Campbell’s acquittal given the many other women who testified about the same conduct 

as Masha. 

We have reviewed Campbell’s remaining contentions but conclude that none has 

merit. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for 

a new trial. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 15-2358 Document: 27 Filed: 02/04/2016 Pages: 4