Submitted: December 12, 2014.
Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock.
For United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee: Kristin Huntington Bryant, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Patricia S. Harris, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR.
For Jermaine Lamon Roy, Defendant - Appellant: Ronald L. Davis Jr., Little Rock, AR.
Jermaine Lamon Roy, Defendant - Appellant, Pro se, Forrest City, AR.
Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
BENTON, Circuit Judge.
A jury convicted Jermaine Lamon Roy of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1). He appeals, arguing the district court erred by excluding evidence of the victim's sexual history, and by not granting a new trial because the government failed to inform the defense that the victim had given a false statement in an Arkansas murder case. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
After arresting two prostitutes, officers arrested the victim, also a prostitute. Officers noticed a bruise or small cut on her face, and other markings on her body. She identified Roy as her pimp and boyfriend. Roy had initially treated her well, but eventually told her that if she loved him, she would go make money for him. Roy began posting ads for the victim on Backpage.com. She was required to give Roy all the money she made from prostitution. Roy hit her every other day, one time taking her into the woods, beating her, and telling her she was going to die. According to several witnesses, the victim received disability benefits as a result of a learning disability and had difficulty reading, writing, and understanding complex concepts.
During the cross-examination of the victim, Roy sought to introduce a videotape of her performing oral sex on him until she was interrupted by a customer's phone call for directions to her apartment. He claimed the video was relevant to show that the victim was not forced into engaging in prostitution. The district court allowed Roy to cross-examine the victim about the video, but ruled that showing it was too prejudicial. Roy also sought to
introduce testimony that the victim had engaged in prostitution before they met. He claimed this showed his mental state--he did not need coercion, threats, force, or fraud to convince her to engage in prostitution. The district court excluded evidence, on both timeliness and substantive grounds, of the ...