United States v. Mi Sun Cho
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
713 F. 3d 716 (2013)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
The federal government (plaintiff) prosecuted Mi Sun Cho (defendant) for transporting a woman in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in prostitution, in violation of the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2421. The trial evidence established that Cho and Mei Hua Jin knew each other from previously working together at a brothel. Jin ran up gambling losses and called Cho from Atlantic City, New Jersey, to see if Cho could use her extensive contacts in the sex-trafficking industry to find Jin employment as a prostitute. Cho arranged with one of her contacts, who was actually a government informant, to offer Jin a job at a brothel in the New York City, New York, borough of Manhattan. The contact called Jin, offered her the brothel job, and specified the date and time for her to take a bus from Atlantic City to New York City. Jin traveled to the borough of Queens by bus and subway, at her own expense. On her arrival in Queens, she met Cho and the contact. The contact drove Jin and Cho to Manhattan, dropping off Cho at her home along the way. The contact took Jin to the brothel, which rejected her because she was too old. The jury convicted Cho, and the judge denied her Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 motion for judgment of acquittal. On appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Cho argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove that she transported Jin, or caused Jin to be transported, in interstate commerce.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.