United States v. Flanders: Convictions and Life Sentences of Men Who Drugged Women, Raped Them, and Recorded the Rape to Sell as Pornography Upheld

United States v. Flanders, No. 12-10995, from SDFla

Senior District Judge Duffy (D.S.C.), joined by Circuit Judge Martin and Senior Circuit Judge Fay.

 

Summary:  The two defendants (Flanders and Callum) fraudulently lured women to South Florida, drugged them, filmed them engaging in sexual acts with one of the defendants, and then sold the pornographic footage.  They were convicted by a jury of multiple counts of inducing women to engage in sex trafficking through fraud.  Flanders was also convicted of distributing a controlled substance.  The district court departed upward to sentence them each to life in prison.   

Flanders first argued that the indictment was defective, but he had waived this argument by failing to object to the indictment before trial.  Only a claim that an indictment fails to state an offense or fails to invoke the court’s jurisdiction is preserved from this waiver rule. 

Both defendants then raised challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, appealing from the denial of their motion for a judgment of acquittal.  After reviewing the evidence, the panel rejected these challenges as meritless.

Next, the panel addressed the defendants’ prosecutorial misconduct claim.  The defendants claimed that the government falsely alleged to the grand jury that Flanders was involved in the sexual exploitation of minors.  Even accepting this assertion as true, the panel concluded that no plain error was shown because the jury verdict rendered harmless any error in the charging decision that might have flowed from the misconduct.  The defendants also argued that the prosecution wrongfully withheld arrest information that contained exculpatory and impeaching evidence.  Since the defendants did not provide any details regarding this evidence, or show that there was a reasonable probability that, if the evidence had been revealed, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different, these challenges were rejected.   

The defendants also challenged a variety of evidentiary rulings, which are evaluated for a clear abuse of discretion and will be reversed only if the resulting error affected the defendants’ substantial rights.  The panel found that the district court did not err when it admitted evidence of internet searches performed by the defendants concerning sex with unconscious women, as the evidence was relevant and not subject to exclusion under Rule 403.  The panel also rejected the contention that the reading into evidence of a transcript of Flanders’ post-Miranda statements violated the best evidence rule.  A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original, unless there is a genuine question of authenticity or it would be unfair to admit the duplicate. 

The defendants also argued that their right to a public trial was violated when the district judge ordered the courtroom doors locked during closing argument.  A compelling reason is needed to justify a complete closure, while a substantial reason is needed for a partial closure.  The panel concluded that given the facts of this case, where the courtroom was nearly full and several of the defendants’ family and friends were in attendance, there was no violation of constitutional rights based on this partial closure. 

 

The defendants also raised a double jeopardy argument, contending that they were convicted of two separate statutory violations (15 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1) and § 1591(a)(2)) based on the same act.  In order to determine whether two provisions punish the same offense, a court looks to whether each statutory provision requires proof of a fact that the other does not.  Since each subsection required proof of an element that the other did not, the separate convictions for each did not result in a double jeopardy conviction.

Lastly, the panel addressed a variety of minor challenges to the defendants’ sentences, which were rejected as without merit. Notably, the panel affirmed the district court’s application of an upward departure for conduct that was unusually heinous, cruel, or brutal. 

The panel affirmed the defendants’ convictions and sentences and dismissed Flanders’ pro se appeal of a final order of forfeiture for lack of jurisdiction, since the time for filing an appeal based on a forfeiture runs from the entry of the preliminary entry of the forfeiture order, not the final order.