finding evidence of drugs provided to complainants by defendant while defendant allegedly transported complainants involved in prostitution to be “relevant intrinsic evidence of how the actual violation occurred”
How later courts described this case
- finding evidence of drugs provided to complainants by defendant while defendant allegedly transported complainants involved in prostitution to be “relevant intrinsic evidence of how the actual violation occurred”
- affirming district court's ruling that the probative value of evidence regarding how a defendant "used drugs and violence to control the women and make them prostitute for him” outweighed its prejudicial effect
- upholding convictions under both sections 2421 and 2423(b) and stating that “[w]hen no dominant purpose exists, it is because any such purpose was either non-existent or ‘incidental’”
- describing a similar pattern of treatment in a sex trafficking context
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur. But, in my opinion, it is most arguable that we should review the motion for aequittal/element of the offense issue only for plain error, because Campbell did not later object to the jury instruction on this point. Cf. United States v. Graves, 5 F.3d 1546, 1551-53 (5th Cir.1993) (reviewing for plain error where defendant did not make contemporaneous objection to admission of evidence that was subject of earlier ruling on motion in limine).