Sixth Circuit Finds Evidence About Alleged Sex Trafficking Victims’ History of Prostitution Inadmissible Under Rape Shield Rule
Federal Rule of Evidence 412(a) provides that
The following evidence is not admissible in a civil or criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct:
(1) evidence offered to prove that a victim engaged in other sexual behavior; or
(2) evidence offered to prove a victim’s sexual predisposition.
That said, Federal Rule of Evidence 412(b)(1)(C) provides that
The court may admit the following evidence in a criminal case:….
(C) evidence whose exclusion would violate the defendant’s constitutional rights.
So, should a defendant charged with sex trafficking be able to present evidence that the alleged victims of that trafficking had engaged in prostitution? That was the question addressed by the Sixth Circuit in its recent opinion in United States v. Bixler, 2022 WL 247740 (6th Cir. 2022).
In Bixler, Prince Bixler was charged with sex trafficking and related crimes. After he was convicted, he appealed, claiming that he had a constitutional right to present evidence that his alleged victims had engaged in prostitution. In rejecting this argument, the Sixth Circuit held that
Although “the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense…[it] does not require the admission of irrelevant evidence (or other types of evidence whose relevance is outweighed by other important considerations).”….We agree with the great weight of authority from our sister circuits that prior acts of prostitution are irrelevant to sex trafficking charges under § 1591(a). See, e.g., United States v. Carson, 870 F.3d 584, 595-96 (7th Cir. 2017); United States v. Gemma, 818 F.3d 23, 34 (1st Cir. 2016); United States v. Lockhart, 844 F.3d 501, 510 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v. Roy, 781 F.3d 416, 420 (8th Cir. 2015); United States v. Rivera, 799 F.3d 180, 186 (2d Cir. 2015); United States v. Valenzuela, 495 F. App’x 817, 819-20 (9th Cir. 2012).
Prior acts of prostitution lead only to improper character inferences and are not relevant to proving sex trafficking charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). This evidence had no bearing on whether Bixler forced or coerced them into prostitution on the particular occasions alleged in the indictment. Bixler argues that evidence of prior prostitution would demonstrate the women’s propensity to engage in prostitution, which, in turn, would negate their testimony that Bixler forced them into a life of prostitution. However, this is exactly the type of evidence proscribed by Federal Rules of Evidence 412 and 404(b).
-CM