United States v. Darrius Redd, No. 22-1676 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
A jury found Defendant guilty of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, facilitating prostitution, and distributing methylenedioxymethamphetamine (“MDMA”) to a person under twenty-one. Most relevant for this appeal, the government relied on evidence related to the trafficking of A.E., who, at the time, was a college student and under twenty-one. According to the indictment, Defendant trafficked A.E. between approximately February 2 and March 14, 2020. Defendant argued he is entitled to a new trial on two of the three counts because the district court made evidentiary errors and the government deprived him of a fair trial.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that there was no plain error. While Defendant relies on United States v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 768 (8th Cir. 1992), for the proposition that a prosecutor may not urge the jury to convict so as to protect community values or deter other criminal conduct, this is not what occurred here. Rather, the government referenced Defendant’s victims, tracking the evidence presented at trial. And although the government stated someone should end Defendant’s behavior by telling him “no” and “enough is enough,” the context was recounting the evidence presented at trial. Indeed, the government concluded by urging the jury to rely on the evidence. The district court did not plainly err by failing to sua sponte correct the government’s closing argument.
Court Description: [Grasz, Author, with Gruender and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court properly excluded videos of defendant having sex with the victim under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 as her initial sexual encounter with defendant did not establish her consent to later commercial sex with others; even if they were admissible under Rule 412, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the videos under Rule 403; exclusion of the videos did not violate defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights; nor did the district court's decision to prohibit defendant from cross-examining the victim regarding statements in the videos that she had previously engaged in prostitution violate defendant's constitutional rights; the court did not err in admitting expert testimony on aspects of sex-trafficking; the district court did not plainly err by failing to sua sponte intervene during the government's cross-examination of defendant; the district court did not plainly err by failing to correct the government's closing argument. Judge Kelly, concurring.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.