United States v. Mickey, No. 16-50343 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for two counts of sex trafficking by force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion. The panel held that defendant had ample notice of the charges against him and the jury was properly instructed on the nature of those charges. Therefore, defendant's argument that force, threats of force, fraud, and coercion were separate elements of the crime was unavailing. The panel clarified that the prosecution was required to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt—without a requirement to subdivide the inquiry to the atomic level—and that jury instructions should not only match the statutory language but should be internally consistent. The panel also held that there was no constructive amendment of the indictment where the omission of the phrase "or any combination of such means" in the indictment did not seriously affect the integrity of the proceedings. In this case, the evidence at trial that defendant used force, threats of force, fraud, and coercion in trafficking his victims was voluminous and overwhelming.
Court Description: Criminal Law The panel affirmed convictions for two counts of sex trafficking by force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a) and (b)(1). The panel held that the district court did not err by refusing to give a specific unanimity instruction regarding which precise combination of means the defendant used to cause the victim to engage in a commercial sex act. The panel rejected the defendant’s contention that force, threats of force, fraud, and coercion are separate elements of the crime. The panel held that although the prosecution technically erred in failing to include the statutory phrase “or any combination of such means” in the indictment, inclusion of that phrase in the jury instructions and Special Verdict Form did not constitute a constructive amendment of the indictment. The panel wrote that the defendant cannot show prejudice, and concluded that there was no plain error.
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.