United States v. Carson
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
870 F.3d 584 (2017)
- Written by Kelsey Libby, JD
Facts
Starting in 2009, Kaitlin Fratto began working for McKenzie Carson (defendant) as a commercial sex worker. Carson was informed multiple times that she was a minor. During Fratto’s employ, Carson raped and threatened her, controlled the money she earned, and isolated her from others. Carson also employed multiple women as commercial sex workers who were not minors, all of whom had ongoing problems with drug addiction and homelessness. Carson controlled his workers by means of drugs, physical violence, rape, threats, isolation, and other means of subjugation. For instance, Veronica Del Valle testified that, in additional to beating and raping her, Carson controlled her by taking her personal phone, tracking and following her using the GPS on her business phone, and removing her clothes and shoes from a hotel to prevent her from leaving. Carson was charged with four counts of sex trafficking under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a), one based on Fratto’s status as a minor and three based on the theory that Fratto and the other workers (victims) were forced, threatened, or coerced into commercial sex acts. At trial, Carson argued that his victims had engaged in prostitution in the past and the fact that he knew about it was relevant to whether he coerced them to engage in commercial sex transactions, as required by the statute. The district court barred the evidence and Carson was convicted by a jury.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rovner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.