# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 21 42

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Tho m as Thad eu s Sz czer ba , als o k no wn as Enzo

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 4, 2 01 8

Fi le d: Ju ly 26, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

A jury fo un d Tho m as Tha de us Szcz erb a gu il ty of th e fo ll owi ng fo ur of fen se s

rel at ed to in te rs ta te pr os ti tu ti on : on e co un t of co ns pi racy to co m m it a n o f f e n se

ag ai ns t th e Uni te d St at es in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 37 1; on e co un t of in te rs ta te

tra ns po rta ti on of an in di vi du al to en ga ge i n p r o s ti tu ti on in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 24 21 an d 2; on e co un t of us e of faci li ti es in in te rs ta te co m m erce wit h in te nt to ai dan en te rp ris e in vo lv in g pr os ti tu ti on in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 19 52 (a)( 3) an d 2; an d

on e co un t of us e of faci li ti es in in te rs ta te co m m erce wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e pr oc eed s

fro m an en te rp ris e in vo lv in g pr os ti tu ti on in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 19 52 (a)( 1) an d

2. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Szcz erb a to 14 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Szcz erb a 1

ap pe al s fro m th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n to su pp res s e v i d e nc e, hi s m ot io n to ex cl ud e

ex pe rt e v i d e n c e , h i s m ot io n fo r a m is tri al

, hi s m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al ba se d on th e

go ve rn m en t’s fai lu re to di sc lo se cert ai n ev id en ce, an d hi s m ot io n fo r ju d g ment of

acq ui tt al

. Szcz erb a al so arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in cal cu la ti ng hi s se nt en ce

an d i m po se d a su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le sen te nc e. W e aff irm.

I. Back gr ou nd

B.M. m ov ed fro m Lou is ia na to Hou st on , Tex as , fo r a f r e s h s t art

. Sh e m et

Szcz erb a in 20 15 , wh il e sh e was wor ki ng as a st r i p p e r at a cl ub th at he freq ue nt ed

. Szcz erb a be fri en de d B.M. an d in tro du ced he r to Keis ha Edwar ds

, a pr os t it ut e who

u s e d th e al ia s St acey Mo nr oe

. B.M. ev en tu al ly m ov ed in to th e ap art m en t th a t

Szcz erb a an d Edwar ds sh ared

. In Ju ne 20 15

, B.M. be ga n pe rfo rm in g se x act s fo r

m on ey , us in g t he ali as Aver y Mo nr oe . At th at ti m e, sh e was twen ty-two years ol d.

Szcz erb a an d Ed w a r d s t o o k ph ot os of B.M. an d po st ed th em wit h an

ad ve r t is em en t on Bac kp ag e.co m , a web si te kn own fo r ad ve rti si ng pr os ti tu te s.

Szcz erb a ga ve B.M. a ph on e an d a sc rip t to us e whe n cu st om ers cal le d. Sh e reco rd ed

in a no te bo ok th e cu st om er’s fir st na m e, th e le ng th of ti m e th e cu st om er ha d

r e qu es te d, an d th e am ou nt th at th e cu st om er ha d ag reed to pa y

. Szcz erb a an d

Edwar ds se t th e rat es fo r B.M.’s se rv ic es , req ui rin g he r to m ak e $1 ,00 0 pe r da y

. B.M.

m et cu st om ers at Szcz erb a’s Hou st on ap art m en t an d at ot he r lo cat io ns

. Afte r ha vi ng

se x wi th th e m en , sh e g av e Szc zerb a th e m on ey sh e rec ei ve d.

The Hon or ab le Hen ry E. Aut rey, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-Szcz erb a p ro vi de d B .M. wit h c on do m s, foo d, clo th in g, and pe rs on al hygi en e

pr od uc ts

. He co nt ro ll e d w h e n sh e sl ep t an d whe n sh e at e. He reg ul at ed he r ph on e

acce ss . He carri ed in hi s wall et a card on whi ch were writ te n B.M.’s ful l n am e, he r

so ci al s e c u r i ty nu m

be r, an d he r fam il y ’s ad dr es s. B.M. te st ifi ed th at sh e fel t

th reat en ed by Szcz erb a, an d sh e wor rie d th at he wou ld fin d he r fam il y

. Sz c z e r ba

pu bl ic ly em

ba rras se d an d de gr ad ed B.M. by lo ud ly cal li ng he r a bi tc h, a who re, an d

a sl ut

.

Szcz erb a’s so c i a l m ed ia acco un t de sc rib ed hi m as “ th e ki ng , pr of es si on al

rel at io ns hi p co ns ul ta nt

, th o r o u g hb red

, th e ho rs e tra in er,” an d he in cl ud ed ha sh ta gs

l i k e #P GO an d #AOB, whi ch m ean Pi m pi ng Goi ng On an d All On a Bi tc h. La w

en fo rcem en t of

fic ers te st ifi ed th at th e te rm “ ki ng ” m ean s pi m p, th at “ st ab le ” refe r s

to th e pi m

p’s pr os ti tu te s, an d th at “ th or ou gh br ed tra i n e r” m ean s a pi m p wit h “ th e

m os t t ho ro ug hl y

tra in ed gi rl; th e to p- of

-th e-l in e g irl .”

In la te Ju ne 20 15

, Szcz erb a dr ov e B.M. fro m Hou st on to Ch ic ag o, Ill in oi s,

whe re th ey m et Edwar ds

. Sev eral da y s la te r th e th ree tra ve le d to W is co ns in

. On Ju ly

10

, 20 15

, th ey tra ve le d to St

. Lo u i s , whe re Edwar ds ren te d a ro om at a do wnt own

ho te l. Edwar ds an d B.M. sa w cu st om ers in each ci ty, aft er Szcz erb a an d Edwar ds
pl aced ad ve rti se m en ts fo r th e se rv ic es of St acy an d Ave ry Mo nr oe on Bac kp ag e.co m

.

B.M. st art ed he r m en st ru al cy cl e du rin g th e st ay in St

. Lou is

. Szcz erb a to ld he r

to pl ace a m ak e-u p sp on ge in he r va gi na so th at cu st om ers wou ld no t kn ow th at sh e

was m en st ru at in g. The sp on ge di d no t wor k, ho wev er, an d B.M. bl ed on a cu st om er

du rin g va gi na l in te rco ur se

. B.M. wor rie d th at Szcz erb a wou ld be an gr y if th e

cu st om er di d no t pa y , so sh e st op pe d in te rco ur se an d cal le d Szcz erb a, who in st ru ct ed

h e r to pl ace an ot he r sp on ge in he r va gi na , whi ch sh e di d. B.M. fin i s h e d h a v i n g

in te rco ur se wit h th e cu st om er, la te r de sc rib in g it as “ ex cru ci at in g” an d “ li ke

co nt ract io ns .”

-3

-One of th e m ak e-u p sp on ge s was lo dg ed in B.M.’s va gi na

. Sh e as ke d Szcz erb a

to ta ke he r to th e ho sp it al

, bu t he de ci de d to rem ov e th e sp on ge hi m se lf wit h

twee zers

. Szcz erb a ev en tu al ly dr ov e B.M. to th e ho sp it a l to ha ve th e sp on ge

rem ov ed

. As he dro pp ed he r of f, Szcz erb a to ld B.M. t o u se he r al ia s an d “ Don ’t be

st u pi d.” A ph y si ci an as si st an t rem ov ed th e sp on ge an d pr es cri be d an ti bi ot ic s fo r
B.M., who us ed th e fir st na m e Ave ry an d he r real la st na m e. A l t h o u gh Szcz erb a

wan te d B.M. t o c o n t i nu e wor ki ng th at ni gh t, sh e was in to o m uc h pa in to se e

cu st om ers . She res um ed work in g t he ne xt da y

.

B.M. ha d no t be en m eet in g he r $1 ,00 0 d a i l y q u o ta in St

. Lou is

, so Szcz erb a

in st ru ct ed he r to go ou t an d fin d cu st om ers

. B.M. an d Edwar ds wen t to a few ba rs in

do wnt own St

. Lou is on Ju ly 15

, 20 15

, an d ev en tu al ly m et a m an na m ed Jo rd an

. The

th ree wen t ba ck to Jo rd an ’s ap art m en t, whe re th ey ha d dr in ks an d us ed co cai ne

. An

arg um en t eru pt ed whe n Edwar ds tri ed to st eal Jo rd an ’s p ho n e , c a u s i ng Edwar ds to

ru n ou t o f t h e ap art m en t. W he n Jo rd an an d B.M. wen t do wn to th e lo bb y of th e

ap art m en t bu il di ng , th ey d i s c o v e r ed Edwar ds an d Szcz erb a. Acco rd in g to B.M.,

“ [e]ver y on e was sc ream in g” an d Jo rd an “ was m ad ab ou t th e ph on e an d was wav in g

a g un at S zcze rb a.”

B.M. deci de d to fle e. Sh e lo st a sh oe as sh e ran an d ki ck ed of f th e ot he r on e.

B.M. te st ifi ed th at sh e “ ran un ti l [s he ] fo un d so m ewh ere sa fe to hi de .” Sh e cl im be d

in s i de a du m

ps te r, whe re sh e st ay ed un ti l sh e no lo ng er co ul d he ar Szcz erb a an d

Edwar ds cal li ng fo r he r. B.M. t he n c li m be d o ut of t he du m

ps te r, hi d b eh in d i t, an d

cal le d a fri en d in Hou st on , who us ed th ree- way cal li ng to di al 91 1 at ap pr ox im at el y

5: 27 a.m

. on Ju ly 16

, 20 15

. W he n offi cers arri ve d, B.M. was st an di ng sh oe le ss an d

sc ared ne ar a d um

ps te r. Offic ers bro ug ht he r to th e h os pi ta l fo r m ed ic al care

.

Se rg ea nt Pa tr ic ia N ijkam

p of th e St

. Lou is Met ro po li ta n Po li ce Dep art m en t m et

B.M. at th e ho sp it a l

. Nijk am p was an in te ll ig en ce de te ct iv e at th e ti m e an d was

-4

-res po ns ib le fo r in ve st ig at in g cri m es rel at ed to hu m an tra ffi ck in g, se x tra ffi ck in g, an d

la bo r tr affi ck in g.

B.M. ap pe ared sh ak en as sh e to ld Nijk am p ab ou t ho w Szcz erb a ke pt he r fro m

us in g he r cel l ph on e, fro m eat in g, an d fro m sl eep in g, un ti l sh e m ad e $1 ,00 0, an d ho w

he fo rced he r to wor k whi le sh e was men s t r u a t i n g

. B.M. ga ve Nijk am p a bl ack

no te bo ok

, whi ch in cl ud ed th e sc rip t fo r t a k i n g c al ls an d li st ed th e fir st na m es of

va rio us m en , dat es , ti m es , add res se s, l en gt hs of t im e, an d a m ou nt s t o b e ch arg ed

.

B.M. to ld Nijk am

p th e ro om nu m

be r an d ho te l na m e whe re Szcz erb a an d

Edwar ds were s ta y in g a nd sa id th at Szcz erb a ha d dr iv en fro m Tex as to Mi ss ou ri i n

a go ld Mer ced es

. Nijk am p co nf irmed th at th ere was a ro om reg is te red to Edwar ds at

th e ho te l an d th at th ere was a go ld Mer ced es r e g i s t e r e d to Edwar ds in th e ho te l

pa rk in g lo t. Nijk am

p th erea fte r wen t to th e ho te l ro om , whe re Szcz erb a an d Edwar ds

were arre st ed an d refu se d co n se nt to a se arch

. Afte r Nijk am p an d ot he r la w

en fo rcem en t of

fic ers se cu red th e ho te l ro om an d th e Mer ced es , Nijk am p ap pl ie d fo r

a se arch warran t.

Afte r th e warra nt is su ed , o ffi cers se arch ed th e ho te l ro o m an d th e Mer ced es

. Am on g th e it em s th ey fo un d were se ve ral bo xe s of co nd om s, se x to y s, de nt al da m s,

m ak e-u p sp on ge s, fem in in e hygi en e pr od uc ts

, m ed ic a t i o n p res cri be d to Ave ry M.,

an d se ve ra l r e cei pt s. Szcz erb a an d Edwar ds were ch arg ed in a se ve n- co un t

su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t wit h of fen se s rel at ed to se x tra ff

ic kin g an d pr os ti tu ti on

. Afte r

th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io ns to su p p r e s s ev id en ce an d to ex cl ud e ex pe rt

ev id en ce, th e cas e pr oc eed ed to tri al

. On th e fir st da y of tri al

, Edwar ds pl ead ed gu il ty

t o us e of faci li ti es in in te rs ta te co m m erce wit h in te nt to ai d an en te rp ris e in vo l v i n g

pr os ti tu ti on an d us e of faci l i t i e s in in te rs ta te co m m erce wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e

pr oc eed s fr om

an en te rp ris e in vo lv in g p ro st it ut io n.

-5

-The go ve rn m en t cal le d as wit ne ss e s B

. M

. , Nijk am p, an d se ve ral ot he r la w

en fo rcem en t of

fic ers

. It pr es en te d th e ev id en ce di sc ov ered in th e ho te l roo m an d in

th e M e r c e de s, as well as th e reco rd in g of B.M.’s 91 1 cal l, th e Bac kp ag e.co m

ad ve rti se m en ts fo r St acy an d Ave ry Mo nr oe , an d e v i d e nc e of Szcz erb a’s ba nk

tra ns act io ns an d hi s po st s on so ci al m ed ia

. Ove r Szcz erb a’s o b je ct io n, th e di st ric t

co ur t al lo wed Dete ct iv e Derek St ig ert s of th e Sacr am en to

, Cal ifo rn ia

, Po li ce Dep art m en t to te st ify as an ex pe rt. St ig ert s de fin ed te rm s th at are co m m on ly us ed in

th e “ pi m p/ pr os ti tu ti on su bc ul tu re.” He al so ex pl ai ne d ho w pr os ti tu te s are ad ve rti se d

an d h ow p im

ps recr ui t an d c on tro l p ro st it ut es

.

Befo re th e fo ur th da y of tri al be ga n, th e pr os ecu to r pr od uc ed a su m m ary of an

in te rv ie w pr ep ared by Sp eci al Age nt Je nn i f e r Ly nc h of th e Fed eral Bu reau of

In ve st ig a ti on (FBI ). The su m m ary pr ev io us ly ha d no t be en di sc lo se d to de fen se

co un se l. Acco rd in g to th e do cu m en t, Ly nc h an d Nijk am

p in te rv ie wed a m an who ha d

m et B.M. in St. L ou is on Ju ly 15

, 20 15

. Afte r he bo ug ht B.M. and Edwar ds dr in ks

, B.M. to ld th e m an sh e ha d be en a st rip pe r an d sh owe d h i m p h o t o s of he r weari ng

li ng eri e. At ap pr ox im at el y 12 :3 0 or 1: 00 a.m ., t he m an de cl in ed to pa y th e w o men

fo r se x. Defen se co un se l cro ss -ex am in ed Ly nc h ab ou t th e co nt en ts of th e su m m ary

an d arg ue d in cl os in g th at th e in ci de nt te nd ed to sh ow th at B.M.— no t Szcz erb a or

Edwar ds —ad ve rti se d h ers el f as a pr os ti tu te

.

On th e fif

th da y of tri al

, a f

t e r th e cas e was su bm it te d to th e jury an d th e

al te rn at e juro r was rel eas ed

, on e of th e juro rs cal le d in to rep or t th at he wou ld no t be

ab le to co nt in ue se rv in g as a juro r. Befo re the co ur t de cl ared a m is tri al an d whi le it

was ex pl ai ni ng to th e jury wha t h ad ha pp en ed , th e twe lft h juro r cal le d and sa id th at

he co ul d rep or t fo r du ty. The co ur t ov erru le d Szcz erb a’s ob jecti on to al lo win g th e jury to co nt in ue de li be rat in g a nd de ni ed hi s m ot io n fo r a m is tri al

.

-6

-The twel ve -m em be r jury ret ur ne d gu il ty v erd ic ts on fo ur of th e se ve n c ou nt s

ch arg ed ag ai ns t Szcz erb a. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Szcz erb a’s po st -tr ia l m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al or a ne w tri al

.

II. Dis cu ss io n

A. Mot io n t o S up pr es s Ev id en ce

Serg ean t Nijk am

p req ue st ed th at a se arch be au th or iz ed fo r th e ho te l ro om an d

th e Mer ced es . Her affi da vi t i n s up po rt o f th e se arch warran t s ta te d t ha t o n Ju ly 1 6,

20 15

, B.M. ha d “ es cap ed fro m t w o s u s p ect s th at ha d be en fo rci ng he r to pr os ti tu te

he rs el f.” It ex pl ai ne d th at B.M., Szcz erb a, an d Edwar ds ha d be en st ay in g in St

. Lou is

fo r ap pr ox im at el y

fiv e d ay s, d ur in g wh ic h:

Szcz erb a[] pu t th e vi ct im in a c o n s t a nt st at e of fear fo r he r sa fet y by

th reat en in g to be at he r, fo rcef ul ly gr ab bi ng he r face whi le y el li ng an d
be rat in g he r, de nyin g he r free do m of m ov em en t, h av in g co nt ro l of he r cel l ph on e, de nyin g he r req ue st s fo r fo od

. . . . [an d] no t al lo win g he r to

res t or sl eep un ti l sh e reac he d he r da il y qu ot a of $1 00 0

. . . , an d fo rci ng he r to pr os ti tu te he rs el f whi le on he r m en st ru al cy cl e by us in g a m ak e up

sp on ge as a fem in in e h y gi en e p ro du ct

.

The affi da vi t id en ti fie d th e ho te l na m e, ad dr es s, an d r o o m n u mb e r , as well as th e

Mer ced es ’s Tex as li cen se pl at e nu m be r an d ve hi cl e id en ti fic at io n nu m be r. The

affi da vi t l is te d th e fo ll owi ng ev id en ce tha t B.M. st at ed wou ld be fou nd in th e ro om

an d th e ve hi cl e: cel l ph on es , la pt op co m pu te rs , la rg e am ou nt s of c a s h

, co nd om s,

lu br ic an t, an d rece ip ts a n d pa pe rwo rk rel at in g to th e cri m e of tra ffi ck in g fo r th e

pu rp os e of se xu al ex pl oi ta ti on

. Nijk am p pr es en te d th e affi da vi t to a st at e co ur t jud ge , b efo re who m th e affi da vi t was “ [s ]ubs cri be d an d swo rn to .” The st at e co ur t ju d g e

al so si gn ed th e aff

id av it

.

-7

-O n t he ba si s of th e cri m in al co m pl ai nt an d Nijk am

p’s affi da vi t, a st at e co ur t
jud ge fo un d th at th ere was pr ob ab le cau se fo r th e is su an ce of a se arch warra nt

. The

warra nt st at ed th at th e ho te l ro om an d th e go ld Mer ced es were reg is te red to Edwar ds

. It id en ti fie d th e na m e, ad dr es s, an d ro om nu m be r of th e ho te l an d th e lo cat io n, li cen se pl at e nu m

be r, an d v e h i c l e id en ti fic at io n nu m be r of th e Mer ced es

. In st ead of

co m m an di n g t he se arch of th e ho te l ro om or th e Mer ced es , ho wev er, th e warra nt

st at ed th at it au th or iz ed th e se arch of “ sa id pe rs on .” The warra nt di d no t id en ti fy th e

it em s au th or iz ed to be se iz ed du rin g th e se arch

, an d al th ou gh it refe rred to Nijk am p’s

su pp or ti ng affi da vi t, i t d id no t i nc or po rat e th e aff

id av it by referen ce.

Nijk am p se rv ed as th e le ad de te ct iv e in th e cas e. Sh e be li ev ed th at th e warra nt

au th or iz ed th e se arch of th e ho te l ro om an d of th e Mer ced es an d th e se i z u r e of

ev id en ce se t fo rth in he r affi da vi t. Nijk a mp br ou gh t a co py of th e warra nt an d th e

su pp or ti ng affi da vi t wit h he r whe n sh e wen t to co nd uc t th e se arch es

. Sh e, al on g wit h

he r li eu te na nt

, su pe rv is ed th e of fic ers se arch in g th e ho te l roo m an d th e ve hi cl e. As

se t fo rth ab ov e, th e o ffi cers fou nd in cri m in at in g e vi de nc e d ur in g t he sea rch es

.

Szcz erb a m ov ed to su pp res s ev id en ce. A m ag is tra te jud ge de te rm in ed th at th e 2

warra nt was in va li d be cau se it di d no t accu rat el y de sc rib e th e lo cat io ns to be se arch ed

an d di d no t pa rti cu la rly de sc rib e th e it em s to be se iz ed

. The m ag is tra te jud ge

co nc lu de d, ho wev er, th at th e of fic ers ’ rel ia nc e on th e warra nt was ob jecti ve ly

reas on ab le an d th us reco m m en de d th at t he m ot io n to su pp res s be de ni ed

. Ove r

Szcz erb a’s ob

jecti on , th e di st ric t cou rt ado pt ed th e reco m m en da ti on an d den ie d th e

m ot io n. In rev ie win g th e de ni al of a m ot io n to su pp res s ev id en ce, we rev ie w fo r cl ear

erro r th e d is tri ct co ur t’s fi nd in gs an d de no vo it s co nc lu si on s of la w. Uni te d St at es

v. Ham il to n, 5 91 F.3d 10 17 , 10 21 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

The Hon or ab le Dav id D. Noc e, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 2

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-8

-Szcz erb a arg ue s th at th e di st ric t c o u r t pr op erl y de te rm in ed th at th e se arch

warra nt was in va li d, bu t erre d in ap pl y in g th e Leo n go od -fa i t h e x c e p ti on to th e

ex cl us io na ry ru le

. He co nt en ds th at th e warra nt di d no t a u t h o r iz e th e se arch of th e

ho te l ro om or th e car, no r di d it se t fo rth an y it em s to be se iz ed

. W e vi ew th e warra nt

as ha vi ng two pr ob le m s: th e au th or iz at i o n o f th e se arch of “ sa id pe rs on ” an d th e

fai lu re t o l is t t he it em s t o b e se iz ed

.

W e fir st co nc lu de th at th e warra nt ’s au th or iz at io n to se arch “ sa id pe rs on ”

in st ead of “ sa id pr op ert y ” di d no t ren de r th e warra nt in va li d. The warra nt pa rti cu la rly

de sc r i b e d t he ho te l ro om an d th e Mer ced es

. The om is si on of th e wor d “ pr op ert y ”

fro m th e au th or iz in g lan gu ag e ap pe ars to be a cl eri cal erro r in li gh t of th e warra nt ’s

m et ic ul ou s id en ti fic at io n of th e ho te l ro om an d th e Mer ced es , th e affi da vi t’s si m il arl y

m et ic ul ou s de sc rip ti on an d it s req ue st to se arch th e ho te l ro om an d th e Mer ced es , an d

th e warra nt ’s ot he rwis e no ns en si cal au th or iz at io n of th e se iz ur e of “ ab ov e de sc rib ed

pr op ert y ” ( i.e.

, th e ho te l ro om an d th e Mer ced es ) if it “ be fo un d on th e sa id pe rs on by

y ou .” In th es e ci rcu m st an ces , a reas on ab le of fic er ex e c u t i n g th e warra nt li ke ly 3

wou ld ha ve read th e warra nt to au th or iz e th e se arch of th e pa rti cu la rly de sc r i b e d

pr op ert y an d no t th e pe rs on who was m en ti on ed on ly in rel at io n to th e pr op ert y an d

on ly becau se th e p ro pe rty was reg is te red in he r na m e.

The warra nt la ck ed pa rti cu la rit y , be cau se it di d n ot li st th e it em s t o be sei zed

or in co rp or at e Nijk am

p’s affi da vi t. The Fo ur th Am e n d m en t pr ov id es th at “ no

W arra nt s sh al l is su e, bu t up on pr ob ab le cau se , su pp or te d by Oath or affi rm at io n, an d

pa rti cu la rly de sc rib in g th e pl ace to be se arch ed

, an d th e pe r s o n s o r th in gs to be

se iz ed .” U.S. Co ns t. am en d. IV. The pa rti cu la rit y req ui r em en t can be sa ti sf ie d by

li st in g th e it em s to be se iz ed in th e warra nt it se lf or in an affi da vi t th at is in co rp or at ed

in to th e warra nt

. Ham il to n, 59 1 F.3 d at 10 24

. The Su pr eme C o u rt ha s sa id th at a

Nijk amp t e st ifi ed th at sh e bo rro wed th e au th or iz in g la ng ua ge fro m ot he r 3

se arch warran ts an d e rro ne ou sl y us ed th e wor d “ pe rs on ” in st ead of “ pr op ert y .”

-9

-warra nt wil l be read to in co rp or at e an affi da vi t “ if th e warra nt us es ap pr op ria te wor ds

of in co rp or at io n, an d if th e su pp or ti ng do cu m en t acco m pa ni es th e warra nt .” Gro h v.

Ram ire z, 54 0 U.S. 5 51 , 5 57 -5 8 (2 00 4) ; s ee Un it ed Sta te s v . Cur ry , 91 1 F .2d 72 , 7 7
(8 th Ci r. 19 90 ) (“ [A] de sc rip ti on in th e su pp or ti ng affi da vi t can su pp ly th e req ui si te

pa r t i c ul ari ty if ‘a) th e affi da vi t acco m pa ni es th e warra nt

, an d b) th e warra nt us es

su it ab le wor ds of refe ren ce whi ch in co rp or at e th e affi da vi t th erei n.’” (q uo ti ng Uni te d

St at es v. St ran d, 7 61 F.2d 44 9, 4 53 (8t h C ir. 1 98 5) )).

W e do no t ag ree wit h th e go ve rn m en t’s co nt en ti on t h a t t he de ta il s- la ck in g

warra nt in co rp or at ed Nijk am p’s affi da vi t by referen ce. The warran t m en ti on ed th e

affi da vi t o nl y

on ce i n i ts av erm en t o f pr ob ab le cau se . Bot h t he Su pr em e Co ur t an d

th is co ur t hav e co nc lu de d th at a warra nt do es no t in co rp or at e a su pp or ti ng affi da vi t

whe n it m erel y st at es th at th e affi da vi t es ta bl i s h e s pr ob ab le cau se

. See Gro h, 54 0

U.S. at 55 5, 55 8 (h ol di ng th at a warra nt di d no t in co rp or at e th e su pp or ti ng affi da vi t
by “ reci t[i ng ] th at th e Mag is tra te was sa ti sf ie d th e a f

f i d a vi t es ta bl is he d pr ob ab le

cau se to be li ev e th at co nt rab an d was co nc eal ed on th e pr em is es ”); St ran d, 76 1 F.2d

at 45 3 (h ol di ng th at a warra nt di d no t in co rp or at e th e su pp or ti ng affi da vi t by st at in g

th at th e “ gr ou nd s fo r ap pl ic at io n fo r is su an ce of th e se arch warra nt ex is t as st at ed in

th e su pp or ti ng affi da vi t(s )”); se e al so Cu rry , 91 1 F .2d at 7 7 (h ol di ng th at a warra nt

di d no t in co rp or at e th e su pp or ti ng affi da vi t be cau se it “ di d no t co nt ai n su it ab le wor ds

of r e f e r e n c e

. . . , su ch as ‘see at ta ch ed affi da vi t’ or ‘as de sc rib ed in th e affi da vi t’”
(ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ).

“ Not ev ery Fo ur th Am en dm en t v io la ti on res ul ts in ex cl us io n of th e ev id en ce

ob ta in ed pu rs ua nt to a de fect iv e se arch warra nt ,” ho wev er. Ham il to n, 59 1 F.3 d at

10 27

. Bec au se th e pu rp os e of th e ex cl us io na ry ru le is to “ sa feg ua rd Fo ur th

Am en dm en t ri gh ts ge ne ral ly thro ug h i ts de te rren t ef fect ,” Herri ng v. Un it ed St at es , 55 5 U.S. 13 5, 13 9- 40 (2 00 9) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Cal an dr a, 41 4 U.S. 33 8, 34 8
(1 97 4) ), it “ ap pl ie s o n l y whe re it ‘resu lt [s ] in ap pr eci ab le de te rren ce,’” id

. at 14 1
(q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Leo n, 46 8 U.S. 89 7, 90 9 (1 98 4) ). Exc lu si on “ al m os t al way s

-1 0-req ui res co ur ts to i gn or e rel ia bl e, tru st wor th y ev id en ce be ari ng on gu il t or

in no cen ce,” Dav is v. Uni te d St at e s , 5 6 4 U.S. 22 9, 23 7 (2 01 1)

, an d can res ul t in

“ le tt in g gu il ty an d po ss ib ly da ng ero us de fen da nt s go free —s om et hi ng th at ‘offen ds

ba si c co nc ep ts of th e cri m in al jus ti ce syste m ,’ ” Herri ng , 5 5 5 U .S. at 14 1 (q uo ti ng

Leo n, 46 8 U.S. at 90 8)

. “ Fo r ex cl us io n to be ap pr op ria te

, th e de te rren ce be ne fit s of

su pp res si on m

us t o ut weig h i ts he av y

co st s.” Da vi s, 5 64 U.S. at 2 37

.

Ove r ti m e, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s “ reca li br at ed [it s] co s t

- b e n efi t an al y si s in

ex cl us io n cas es to fo cu s on th e ‘flag ran cy of th e po li ce m is co nd uc t’ at is su e.’” Id

. at

23 8 (q uo ti ng Leo n, 46 8 U.S. at 91 1)

. W he n la w en fo rcem en t of f i c e rs “ ex hi bi t

‘ deli be rat e,’ ‘reckl es s,’ or ‘gro ss ly ne gl ig en t’ di sr eg ard fo r Fo ur th A m en dm en t ri ght s,

th e de te rren t va lu e of ex cl us io n is st ro ng an d te nd s to ou twei gh th e res ul ti ng co st s.”

Id

. at 23 8 (q uo ti ng Herri ng , 55 5 U.S. at 14 4)

. Bu t “ w h e n po li ce m is ta ke s are th e

res ul t of ne gl ig en ce

. . . r a t h e r t h a n syste m ic erro r or reck le ss di sr eg ard of

c on st it ut io na l req ui rem en ts

, an y m arg in al de te rren ce do es no t ‘pay it s way.’ ”

Herri ng , 55 5 U.S. at 14 7- 48 (q uo ti ng Leon , 46 8 U.S. at 90 7- 08 n.6 ).

Szcz erb a arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce sh ou ld ha ve be en su pp res se d be c a u s e t h e

warra nt was “ so faci al ly de fic ie nt th at no ex ecu ti ng of fic er co ul d reas on ab ly pr es um e

it s v al id it y .” App el la nt ’s Br. 15

. He ci te s th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s d eci si on in Groh v.

Ram ire z, whi ch he ld th at th e Leo n go od -fai th ex cep ti on to th e ex cl us io na ry ru le di d

no t en ti tl e of

fic ers to qu al ifi ed im m

un it y aft er th ey co nd uc te d a se arch ba se d on a

warra nt th at fai le d to id en ti fy th e it em s th at of fic ers in te nd ed t o s e i z e a n d di d no t

in co rp o r a t e by refe ren ce th e it em iz ed li st th at was co nt ai ne d in th e warra nt

ap pl ic at io n. Neit he r th e warra nt ap pl ic at io n no r t h e a f fid av it acco m

pa ni ed th e

warra nt whe n of

fic ers ex ecu te d th e se arch

, as bo th do cu m en ts ha d be en pl aced un de r

se al

. The Co ur t he ld th at no reas on a b l e o f f i c e r co ul d be li ev e th at th e warra nt was

va li d, ex pl ai ni ng th at “ ev en a cu rs or y read in g of th e warra nt in th is cas e—p erh ap s jus t a si m pl e gl an ce— wou ld ha ve rev eal ed a gl ari ng de fic ie nc y th at an y reas on ab le

po li ce of fic er wou ld ha ve kn own was co ns ti tu ti on al ly fat al .” Gro h, 54 0 U.S. at 56 4.

-1 1-Si m il arl y , in Leo n, th e Co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at s u p p res si on rem ai ns an ap pr op ria te

rem ed y if, “ de pe nd in g on th e ci rcu m st an ces of th e pa rti cu la r cas e, a warra nt [is ] so

faci al ly de fic ie nt

— i.e.

, in fai li ng to pa rti cu la riz e th e pl ace to be se arch ed or th e th in gs

to be se iz ed

—t ha t t he ex ecu ti ng off

ic ers can no t re as on ab ly pres um e it to be va li d.”

Leo n, 4 68 U.S. at 9 23

.

Co ns id eri ng th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng th e is su an ce an d ex ecu ti on of th e

se arch warr a n t i n th is cas e, we co nc lu de th at th e warra nt was no t so ob vi ou sl y

de fic ie nt th at an y rea s o na bl e of fic er wou ld ha ve kn own th at it was co ns ti tu ti on al ly

f a t a l

. W it h res pe ct to th e pl aces to be se arch ed

, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d t h a t t h e

w arrant “ cl earl y an d im m ed ia te ly pr es en t[e d] to th e read er’s ey e th e two lo cat io ns tha t
Sg t. Nijk am

p kn ew were th e su bjec ts of he r affi da vi t an d were th e ex pe ct ed lo cat io ns

fo r au th or iz ed se arch es .” Ord er an d Rec om m en da ti o n o f J un e 7, 20 16

, at 12

. Alt ho u g h t h e w a r ran t it se lf di d no t de sc rib e th e it em s to be se iz ed

, it sp eci fic al ly

refe rred to Ni

jk a m p’s affi da vi t (“ th e su pp or ti ng writ te n affi da vi t” ), whi ch “ cl earl y

de sc rib es th e lo cat io ns to be se arch ed (th e ho te l ro om an d th e ve hi cl e) an d th e it em s

to be se iz ed (cel l ph on es , la p to p co m pu te r s , l a r g e am ou nt s of cas h, co nd om s,

lu br ic an ts , a nd th e rece ip ts an d pa pe rwo r k r el at in g to th e al le ge d cri m e).” Id

. The

is su in g jud ge si gn ed th e su pp or ti ng affi da vi t, an d Nijk am p te st ifi ed th at sh e br ou gh t

bo th th e affi da vi t an d th e warra nt wit h he r to su pe rv is e th e se arch of th e ho te l ro om

an d th e Mer ced es

. Tha t th e affi d a v i t w a s s i g ne d by th e is su in g jud ge an d th at it

acco m pa ni ed th e warra nt di st in gu is he s t hi s ca se fro m Groh

.

Mo reo ve r, ap pl ic at io n of th e ex cl us io na ry ru le in th is cas e wou ld no t res ul t in

ap pr eci ab le de te rren ce of po li ce m is co nd uc t. To be su re, Nijk am p act ed ne gl ig en tl y

in dr aft in g th e warra nt

. Sh e sh ou ld ha ve us ed ap pr op ria te au th or iz in g la ng ua ge an d

en su red th at th e su pp or ti ng affi da vi t was in co rp or at ed in to th e warra nt

. Bu t in

co ns id eri ng th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at Nijk am p

was “ m os t m in df

ul of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t warra nt req ui rem en t,” in th at sh e as ke d

fo r co ns en t t o se arch , s ecu red th e ho te l ro om aft er co ns en t was refu se d, ap pl ie d fo r

-1 2-a warra nt

, an d “ co nc eal ed no fact s fro m th e jud ge .” Ord er an d Rec om m en da ti on of

Ju ne 7, 20 16

, at 12

. Nijk am p’s co nd uc t cert ai nl y di d no t refl ect th e type of de li be rat e,

reck le ss , or gr os sl y ne g l i g e n t di sr eg ard fo r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t th at th e

ex cl us io na ry ru le can effe ct iv el y de te r. W e th us co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t cou rt di d

no t er r in de nyin g S zcze rb a’s m ot io n t o e xc lu de ev id en ce.

B. Mo ti on To Ex cl ud e Exp ert Test im on y

Mo nt hs be fo re tri al be ga n, the gove rn m en t fi le d its su m m ary of ex pe ct ed ex pe rt

te st im on y , id en ti fy in g as an ex pe rt Derek St ig ert s, a de te ct iv e wit h th e Sacr am en to

, Cal ifo rn ia

, Po li ce Dep art m en t an d a m em be r of an FBI ta sk fo rce th at sp eci al iz es in

se x- tra ffi ck in g in ve st ig at io ns

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Szcz erb a’s m ot io n in li min e

to ex cl ud e St ig ert s’s ex pe rt te st im on y an d ov erru le d Szcz erb a’s ob jecti on to th e

te st im on y at tri al

. W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to ad m it ex pe rt te st im on y

fo r ab us e of d i s c r e t i o n

. Uni te d St at es v. Ken y on , 48 1 F.3 d 10 54

, 10 61 (8 th Ci r.

20 07 ).

S z c zerb a cl ai m s th at St ig ert s’s te st im on y was ad m it te d in vi ol at io n of th e

di sc lo su re req ui rem e n t s o f Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 16 (a)( 1) (G), whi ch

st at es th at “ [a]t th e de fen da nt ’s req ue st , th e g ov ern m en t m us t g iv e to th e de fen da nt

a writ te n su m

m ary of an y te st im on y th at th e go ve rn m en t in te nd s to us e un de r Ru le []

70 2

. . . of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Evi de nc e du rin g it s ca s e-i n- ch ie f at tri al .” The

su m m ary “ m us t de sc rib e th e wit n es s’s op in io ns , th e ba se s an d reas on s fo r th os e

op in io ns , an d th e wit ne ss ’s qu al ifi cat io ns .” Fed

. R. C r im

. P. 16 (a)( 1) (G). W e

co nc lu de th at th e go ve rn m en t sa ti sf ie d th e R ul e’s req ui rem en ts

. The su m m ary of

ex pe rt te s t i mo n y in di cat ed th at St ig ert s wou ld ex pl ai n ho w pi m ps recr ui t, co nt ro l,

co erce , an d ad ve rti se pr os ti tu te s an d th at he wou ld te st ify reg ard in g th e bu si ne ss an d

su bc ul tu re of se x- tra ffi ck in g, in cl ud in g th e la ng ua ge an d pr act ic es co m m on ly us ed

. St ig ert s’s cu rr ic ul um vi ta e se t fo rth hi s twen ty-fiv e y ears of ex pe rie nc e as a la w

en fo rcem en t of

fic er, whi ch in cl ud ed ex te ns iv e ex pe rie nc e in in ve st ig at in g cri m es

-1 3-rel at ed to pr os ti tu ti on an d in in te rv ie win g pi m ps an d wom en in vo lv ed in pr os ti tu ti on

. St ig ert s’s tri al te st im on y he wed cl os el y to th e to pi c s s e t fo rth in th e su m m ary, an d

de fen se co un se l m os t ab ly cro ss -ex am in ed hi m

. The di st ric t co ur t th us di d no t ab us e

it s d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng th e te st im on y

.

Szcz erb a ne xt arg ue s th at St ig ert s’ s te st im on y vi ol at ed Fed eral Ru le of

Evi de nc e 70 2 be cau se it wa s n o t ba se d on rel ia bl e pr in ci pl es an d m et ho ds

. He

co nt en ds th at St ig ert s “ sh ou ld no t ha ve be en pe rm it te d to op in e as to hi s

un de rs ta nd in g of te rm in ol og y an d as to w h a t pi m ps an d pr os ti tu te s ‘ty

pi cal ly’ do

be cau se hi s op in io ns were no t th e pr od uc t of rel i a b l e p r i nc ip le s an d m et ho ds .”
App el la nt ’s Br. 37

. W e di sa gr ee. St ig ert s po ss es se d ad e q u at e cred en ti al s an d

su ffi ci en t fact ua l da ta —i nc lu di ng hi s in te rv ie ws of m or e th an 30 0 wom en in vo lv ed

in pr os ti tu ti on an d 30 su sp ect ed pi m ps , as well as hi s in ve st ig at io n of m or e th an 12 0

se x- tra ffi ck in g cas es — on whi ch to ba se hi s te st im on y

. See Uni te d St at es v. Ged de s,

84 4 F.3 d 98 3, 99 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (h ol di ng th at “ th e d i s t r i c t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s

di sc retio n in al lo win g ex pe rt te st im on y ‘regar di ng th e op erat io n of a pr os ti tu ti on rin g,

in cl ud in g recr ui tm en t of pr os ti tu te s an d th e rel at io ns hi p be twee n pi m ps a nd

pr os ti tu te s, an d reg ard in g jarg on us ed in su ch rin gs

. ’” (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v.

Eva ns , 27 2 F.3 d 10 69

, 10 94 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ))); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Bri ns on , 77 2

F.3 d 13 14

, 13 20 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 14 ) (h ol di ng th at “ th e di st ric t co ur t d i d n o t a b u s e it s

di sc ret io n by al lo win g Dete ct iv e St ig ert s to te st ify as an ex pe rt reg a r d i n g t he

pr os ti tu ti on tra de ”).

W e al so reject Szcz erb a’s arg um en t th at hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to co nf ro nt

wit ne ss es was vi ol at ed be cau se St ig ert s’s ex pe rt te st im on y was ba se d

, i n p a rt, on

in te rv ie ws of pr os ti tu te s an d pi m ps

. See Uni te d St at es v. Pal aci os , 67 7 F.3 d 23 4, 24 3
(4 th Cir . 20 12 ) (“ Alt ho ug h ‘Crawfor d [v . Wash in gt on , 54 1 U.S. 3 6 (2 00 4) ] fo rb id s

th e in tro du ct io n of te st im on ia l he ars ay as ev id en ce in it se lf,’ we ha ve reco gn iz ed th at

‘it in no way pr ev en ts ex pe rt wit ne ss es fro m of feri ng th ei r in de pe nd en t jud gm en ts

m erel y be cau se th os e jud gm en t s w e r e i n so m e pa rt in fo rm ed by th ei r ex po su re to

-1 4-ot he rwis e in ad m is si bl e ev id en ce.’” (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 58 7 F.3 d 62 5,

63 5 (4 th Ci r. 20 09 ))). In su m , we fin d no ab us e of di sc ret io n in th e d i s t r i ct co ur t’s

de ci si on to ad m it Sti ge rts ’s tes ti m on y

.

C. Mo ti on for Mi st ria l

As m en ti on ed ab ov e, aft er th e cas e was su bm it te d to th e jury, on e of th e juro rs

rep or te d th at he w o u ld no t be ab le to co nt in ue se rv in g as a juro r, du e to a m ed ic al

is su e. Out si de th e pr e s e n c e o f th e jury, th e co ur t as ke d whe th er th e pa rti es wou ld

ag ree t o th e cas e be in g de ci de d by t he rem ai ni ng el ev en juro rs . Szcze rb a o bjec te d,

an d th e co ur t sa id th at it wou ld de cl are a m is tri al

, st at in g, “ So in le ga l te rm s, th is wil l

be a m is tri al ; in real pe op le te rm s, th is wil l b e a d o- ov er. I wil l of fic ia ll y de cl are it

wit h th e ot he r juro rs ou t he re.” Afte r th e jury was cal le d in to th e co ur tro om , th e co ur t

ex pl ai ne d t ha t a ju ro r was un av ai la bl e:

Si nc e th at le av es 11 of y ou , t he re are two ch oi ces : One is to de cl are a

m is tri al

, an d th e ot he r is to go f o r w a r d w it h 11

. To go fo rward wit h

11

. . . , th e pa rti es ha ve to ag ree. The pa rti es ha ve n o t a g r eed to go fo rward wit h 11

, whi ch I pr ob ab ly wo u l dn ’t ag ree wit h th at ei th er if I

was si tt in g d own th ere.

The law cl erk th en in te rru pt ed , in fo rm in g t he co ur t t ha t t he twel fth juro r ha d c al le d

an d w a s ab le to rep or t fo r du ty. At a si de ba r, Szcz erb a ob jecte d to th e cas e be in g

de ci de d by th e fu ll jury an d m ov ed fo r a m is tri al

. The co ur t ov erru le d th e ob jecti on ,
st at in g th at it “ ha dn ’t de cl ared [a m is tri al ] y et ” an d th at “ no th in g ha s be en sa id by th e

pa rti es or m e th at im

pa ct s o n t he ir d el ib erat io ns in a ne ga ti ve way .”

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g Szcz erb a’s m ot io n fo r

a m is tri al

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. W il so n, 56 5 F.3 d 10 59

, 10 69 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )
(s ta nd ard of rev ie w). W e fin d no im pr op rie ty in th e co ur t’s st at em en ts to th e el ev en

-1 5-ju r o r s , a nd we reject Szcz erb a’s co nt en ti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t ha d de cl ared a

m is tri al an d t he reaf

te r im pr op erl y all owe d t he jury to co nt in ue de li be rat io ns

.

D. Mot io n fo r a New Tria l

Szcz erb a arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co u r t a bu se d it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g hi s

m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al

. See Uni te d St at es v. Sp en cer, 75 3 F.3 d 74 6

, 7 4 8 ( 8 t h C i r.

20 14 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w). He co nt en ds th at th e go ve rn m en t vi ol at ed it s ob li ga ti on s

un de r Brad y v. Mar y la nd

, 37 3 U.S. 83 (1 96 3)

, an d Gig li o v. Uni te d St at es , 40 5 U.S.

15 0 (1 97 2)

, by fai li ng to di sc lo se FBI Age nt Ly nc h’s in te rv ie w su m

m ary un ti l th e

fo ur th da y

of t ria l.

To es ta bl is h a Brad y vi ol a t i o n , a de fen da nt m us t sh ow th at : “ (1 ) th e

pr os ecu ti on su pp res se d ev id en ce; (2 ) th e ev id en ce w a s fav or ab le to th e de fen da nt ;

an d (3 ) th e ev id en ce was m at eri al .” Sp en cer, 75 3 F.3 d at 74 8 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es

v. Kelt ne r, 14 7 F.3 d 66 2, 67 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 )). “Ev i d e n c e is no t m at eri al si m pl y

b e cau se it wou ld ha ve ‘hel p[ ed ] a de fen da nt pr ep are fo r tri al .’ ” Id

. (al te rat io n i n

or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Alem an , 54 8 F. 3 d 1 1 5 8

, 11 64 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )).

It is in st ead “ m at eri al on ly if th ere is a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at

, ha d th e ev id en ce

be en di sc lo se d to th e de fen se , th e res ul t of th e pr oc eed in g w o u l d h a ve be en

di ffer en t.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Lad ou cer, 57 3 F.3 d 62 8, 63 6 (8 th Ci r.

20 09 )). Gig li o ext en de d th e go ve rn m en t’s du ty to di sc lo se to ev id en ce t ha t m ay be

us ed to im

pe ach go ve rn m en t wit ne ss es

. Uni te d St at es v. Pen dl et on , 83 2 F.3 d 93 4,

94 0 (8 th Cir . 20 16 ).

Szcz erb a le arn ed ab ou t th e ev id en ce du rin g tri al

. “ Und er th e ru le in ou r ci rcu it

Brad y do es no t req ui re pr et ria l di sc lo su re, an d du e pr oc es s is sa ti s f i ed if th e

in fo rm at io n i s f

u r n i sh ed be fo re it is to o la te fo r th e de fen da nt to us e it at tri al .”
Sp en cer, 75 3 F.3 d at 74 8 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Alm en da res , 3 97 F.3d 65 3, 6 64
(8 th Ci r. 20 05 )). Acco rd in gl y , to es ta bl is h a Brad y vi ol at io n, Szcz erb a m us t sh ow

-1 6-th at th e go ve rn m en t’s de la y in di sc lo si ng th e ev id en ce de pr iv ed hi m of it s us efu ln es s

an d th at th is de pr iv at io n m at eri al ly affe ct ed th e ou tc om e of hi s tri al

. Szcz erb a can no t

m eet th is bu rd en

.

S z c z e rb a was ab le to pr es en t an d us e th e ev id en ce du rin g tri al

. As s e t f o r t h

ab ov e, whe n th e go ve rn m en t di sc ov ered th at it in ad ve rte nt ly ha d fai le d to di sc lo se th e

in te rv ie w su m

m ar y, i t s e n t FBI ag en ts to lo cat e th e m an who was in te rv ie wed

. It

pr od uc ed th e su m

m ary to de fen se co un se l, who al ert ed th e co ur t of th e m at te r. W he n

th e co ur t as ke d wha t rel ie f th e de fen d a n t s o u gh t, de fen se co un se l st at ed th at he

“ wou ld li ke to in qu ire of Sp eci al Age nt Ly nc h in to th e su bs ta nc e of th e in te rv ie w th at

sh e co nd uc te d,” whi ch th e co ur t al lo wed hi m to do

. Afte r FBI ag en t s l o c a t ed th e

man, de fen se co un se l m et wit h hi m , bu t ul ti m at el y de ci de d no t to cal l h i m a s a

wit ne ss

.

Dur in g cro ss -ex am in at io n, Ly nc h ex pla ine d the ci rc um stan ces un de r whi ch th e

m an m et B.M. an d Edwar ds : th at B.M. to ld th e m an th at sh e us ed to be a st rip pe r in

New Orle an s, Lou is ia na ; th at B.M. sh owe d hi m ph ot os of he r po si ng fo r Pen th ou se ;

an d t h a t t h e i r c on ve rs at io n en de d aft er th e m an de cl in ed to pa y m on ey fo r se x.

Dur in g cl os in g, de fen se co un se l us ed th e ev id en ce to arg ue th at Szcz e r b a was no t

gu il ty becau se B.M. ad ve rti se d h ers el f as a pr os ti tu te

.

[B.M.] s ho w[ed ] pe op le pi ct ur es of h ers el f; n ot Keis ha [Edwa rd s], n ot
Tho m as [ S z c z e r ba ]. Sh e’s do in g ex act ly wha t th e go ve rn m en t wan ts

y ou to be li ev e Tho m as [Szc zerb a] was do in g in th is cas e, an d th at ’s

im po rta nt

.

Alt h o u g h S z c z erb a co m

pl ai ns th at he was un ab le to us e th e in te rv ie w su m m ary to

im pe ach Nijka m

p a nd B.M., h e d id no t u se th e ev id en ce t o c ro ss -ex am in e Nijk am p

whe n sh e was cal le d in reb ut ta l, n o r di d he as k to reca ll B.M. as a wit ne ss

. Acco rd in gl y , we co nc lu de th at th e de la y in th e di sc lo su re of th e in te rv ie w su m m ary

d id no t de pr iv e Szcz erb a of it s us efu ln es s. Mo reo ve r, in li gh t of th e s u b s t a n t i a l

-1 7-ev id en ce ag ai ns t Szcz erb a, we al so co nc lu de th at an y de pr iv at io n di d no t m at eri al ly

affe ct th e o ut co m e o f hi s t ria l.

E. Chal le ng es to Sen te nc e

A pr es en te nc e rep or t (PSR ) cal cu la te d Szcz erb a’s se nt en ci ng ran ge un de r th e

U.S. Sen te nc in g G u i d e l i ne s Man ua l (Gu id el in es or U.S.S.G.). It gr ou pe d to ge th er

Szcz erb a’s fo ur co un ts of co nv ic ti on s, se e U.S.S.G. § 3D1 .2(b ), an d ap pl ie d § 2G1 .1

to ad dr es s Szcz erb a’s m os t se rio us co un t of co nv ic ti on , in te rs ta te tra ns po r t a t io n of

an in di vi du al to en ga ge in pr os ti tu ti on , se e U.S.S.G. § 3D1 .3 ( a )

. The PSR ap pl ie d

§ 2G1 .1(c )’s cro ss refe ren ce to § 2A3 .1 an d de te rm in ed th at Szcz erb a’s ba se of fen se

le ve l was 30

. See U.S.S.G. § 2A3 .1(a )(2 ). The PSR reco m m en de d in crea s i n g t he

o f f e n s e le ve l by 2 be cau se B.M. su st ai ne d se rio us bo di ly in jury. See U.S.S.G. §

2A3 .1(b ) ( 4 ) (B). W it h a to ta l of fen se le ve l of 32 an d a cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y of

I, Szcz erb a’s ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng ran ge was 12 1 to 15 1 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Ove r

Szcz erb a’s ob

jecti on s, th e di st ric t co ur t ad op te d th e cal cu la ti on s se t fo rth in th e PSR.

Szcz e r b a a r g u e s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ap pl y in g th e cro ss refe ren ce,

whi ch res ul te d in a ba se of fen se le ve l of 3 0. Gui de li ne s § 2G1 .1(c ) in st ru ct s th e

di st ric t co ur t to ap pl y § 2A3 .1 “ [i]f th e of fen se in vo lv ed co nd uc t de sc rib ed in

. . . 18

U.S.C. § 2 24 2.” The s ta tu te pro vi de s:

Wh o e v er, in th e sp eci al m ari ti m e an d te rri to ria l juri sd ic ti on of th e Uni te d S ta te s o r in a Fed eral pri so n . . . kn owi ng ly —

(1 ) cau se s an ot he r pe rs on to en ga ge in a se xu al act by th reat en in g o r pl aci ng th at ot he r pe rs on in fear

. . .

or a t t e mp t s to do so , sh al l be fin ed un de r th is ti tl e an d im pr is on ed fo r

an y ter m of years or f

or li fe.

-1 8-Szcz erb a co nt en ds th at th e cro ss refe ren ce do es no t ap pl y be cau se hi s of fen se

co nd uc t do es no t m eet th e juri sd ic ti on al el em en t of 18 U.S.C. § 22 42

— i.e.

, th e

of fen se di d no t o ccu r wit hi n “ th e sp eci al m ari ti m e an d te rri to ria l juri sd ic ti on of th e

Uni te d St at es or in a Fed eral pr is on .” W e do no t ag ree. Th e co nd uc t de sc rib ed in

§ 22 42 is “ cau s[ in g] an ot he r pe rs on to en ga ge in a s ex ua l act by th reat en in g or pl aci ng th at ot he r pe rs on in fear .” See U.S.S.G. § 2G1 .1 cm t. n.4 (B) (ex pl ai ni ng th at

“ [f]or pu rp os es of s u b s ect io n (c)( 1)

, co nd uc t de sc rib ed in 18 U.S.C. § 22 42 is : (i)

en ga gi ng in

, or cau si ng an ot he r pe rs on to en ga ge in

, a se xu al act wit h an ot he r pe rs on by thr eat en in g o r pl aci ng th e v ic ti m in fear” ). 4

Szcz erb a arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ap pl y in g th e cro ss refe ren ce an d

th e 2- le ve l in crea se to hi s of fen se le ve l be cau se th e jury acq ui tt ed hi m of th e co un ts

th at req ui red a fin di ng th at Szcz erb a us ed fo rce or th reat s of fo rce. “ [A] di st ric t co ur t

m ay us e a de fen da nt ’s rel ev an t con du ct in se nt en ci ng if it fin ds by a pr ep on de ran ce

of th e ev id en ce th at th e co nd uc t oc cu rred

, ev en if th at co nd uc t fo rm ed th e ba si s of a

cri m in al ch arg e on whi ch a jury acq ui tt ed th e de fen da nt .” Uni te d St at es v. Ty nd al l,

52 1 F.3 d 87 7, 88 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). Po in ti ng to th e fac t t ha t t he cro ss refe ren ce an d

en ha nc em en t cau se d hi s Gui de li ne s se n te nc in g ran ge to in crea se fro m 15 to 21

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t to 12 1 to 15 1 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, Szcz erb a arg ue s th at th e

di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve be en req ui red to fin d by cl ear an d co nv in ci ng ev id en ce th at

he ha d en ga ge d in fo rcef

ul or th reat en in g be ha vi or , an arg um en t th at is fo recl os ed by

ou r pr eced en t. See Uni te d St at es v. Vil la real -Am ari ll as , 56 2 F.3 d 89 2, 89 5 (8 th Ci r.

20 09 ).

Szcz erb a arg u e s t h a t th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pr oc ed ur al erro r whe n it

fai le d to ex pl ai n it s reas on s fo r im po si ng a 14 0- m on th se nt en ce or ad dr es s Szcz erb a’s

r e q ue st fo r a do wnwar d va ria nc e. The co ur t ha d ex te ns iv e kn owl ed ge of th is c a s e

W e reject Szcz erb a’s arg um en t th at th e ap pl ic at io n no te s o meh ow co nf li ct s 4

wit h t he Co ns ti tu ti on , wit h 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 42 , and wit h U.S.S.G. § 2G1 .1(c ).

-1 9-be cau se it ha d pr es id ed ov er Szcz erb a’s jury t r i a l

. I t co ns id ered th e pa rti es ’

se nt en ci ng m em or an da an d rel at ed fil in gs an d li st en ed to th e pa rti es ’ arg um en ts

du rin g th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng

. W e co nc lu de th at th e co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n

in de cl in in g to res po nd to Szcz erb a’s req u es t fo r a do wnwar d va ria nc e an d th at it

“ was jus ti fie d in rel y in g on ‘the Co m m is si on ’s own reas on in g th at a Gui de li ne s

se nt en ce is a pr op er se nt en ce.’” Uni te d St at es v. Dace, 66 0 F.3 d 10 11

, 10 14 (8 th Ci r.

20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Rit a v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 51 U.S. 33 8, 3 56 (2 00 7) ).

Co nc lu si on

F i n a l l y, we reject Szcz erb a’s arg um en t th at th e ev id en ce at tri al “ was

in s u f f i c i e n t to pe rm it a jury to reas on ab ly co nc lu de th at an y of th e el em en ts of th e

co un ts of c on vi ct io n wer e p ro ve d b ey on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Ap pe ll an t’s Br . 55

. W e co nc lu de th at

, as se t fo rth ab ov e, th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e jury’ s

fin di ng s th at Szcz erb a co m m it te d co ns pi racy an d cri m es rel at ed to th e pr os ti tu ti on of

B.M. The di st r i c t c o ur t th us di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al

.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2 0-