Opinion ID: 2758259
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sex Trafficking of Children

Text: The jury found Mr. Brinson guilty of Sex Trafficking of Children under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) (2012). To prove guilt, the prosecution had to show that Mr. Brinson  by means affecting interstate commerce  knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, or maintained C.H. or another person, or benefited in a venture which involved C.H. or the other person, and  knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that C.H. or the other person was younger than 18, and  knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that C.H. or the other under-age person would engage in a commercial sex act. 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) (2012). Based on the evidence, the jury could reasonably have found Mr. Brinson guilty of this offense.
The prosecution supplied evidence that Mr. Brinson had engaged in sex trafficking. This evidence included testimony that Mr. Brinson  had rented Room 123 and owned the black SUV that was moving slowly by the room, 8 8 IV Aplt. App. at 512-20. 21  had been paid by another man who had sex with C.H., 9  had driven a black SUV with a “cleaning logo” on the side, 10 and  had driven C.H. in a black SUV before and after she had engaged in an act of prostitution. 11 Based on this evidence, the jury could reasonably find that Mr. Brinson engaged in sex trafficking.
The evidence also indicated that Mr. Brinson had utilized facilities of interstate commerce, such as the internet and cellular phones, to engage in sex trafficking. 12 This evidence included Mr. Brinson’s  establishment of C.H.’s escort advertisements on Backpage.com,  use of cellphones to direct C.H.’s prostitution, and  use of text messages to warn C.H. about the presence of police. Based on this evidence, the jury could reasonably conclude that Mr. Brinson used interstate commerce to engage in sex trafficking. 9 V Aplt. App. at 918-20. 10 V Aplt. App. at 922. 11 V Aplt. App. at 917. 12 Mr. Brinson does not contest that the internet or cellular phones are facilities of interstate commerce. 22
The prosecution also presented evidence that Mr. Brinson had known or recklessly disregarded the fact that C.H. was underage. Officer Osterdyk testified that  C.H. appeared “much younger” than 21,  police had found C.H.’s high school registration form in Mr. Brinson’s SUV, and  the registration form stated that C.H. had been born in 1997 (making her 14 years old when she was arrested). IV Aplt. App. at 505, 536. Based on this evidence, the jury could reasonably find that Mr. Brinson knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that C.H. was a minor.
We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for Sex Trafficking of Children.