United States v. Williams

dissenting.

MEMORANDUM **

Quinton Williams appeals his conviction after a jury trial for a variety of crimes relating to pimping, specifically transportation of a female for prostitution, trans *891 portation of a minor for prostitution, money laundering, sex trafficking in children, and interstate travel in aid of racketeering. Williams argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront a prosecution witness when she was deposed without his being present and the videotaped deposition was later used by the government at trial. Williams also argues that the district court erred in admitting at trial expert testimony concerning the relationship between prostitutes and their pimps, and further erred in admitting prejudicial evidence of uncharged acts.

The crux of Williams’s Confrontation Clause claim is that he did not waive his right to be present at the deposition of Karmice Jackson when he failed to appear and was unavailable for teleconferencing. The district court found that Williams had waived his right to be present because he knew that a warrant was out for his arrest. We review this factual finding for clear error. See United States v. Houtehens, 926 F.2d…

I respectfully dissent.

This was a case without witnesses. The prosecution did not present live testimony at trial from either of the two prostitute victims. Instead, they used a video deposition and a purported expert as substitutes.

The video tape deposition violated Williams’s right to “confront[ ] ... the witnesses against him” 1 because he did not have the “opportunity for cross examination” 2 when the video deposition was taken. He did not waive his right to be present at the video deposition. Williams, an indigent residing in Chicago, was given one day’s notice of a deposition in Las Vegas with no offer of the money to get there. One day, during the holidays when an airplane seat might not even be available, and without an offer of a fare, denied him a fair opportunity to confront the only percipient witness in the case.

Dr. Lee, purporting to be an expert on prostitutes and drawing inferences from such terms of endearment as “daddy” and “angel,” essentially substituted as a witness for the underage prostitute whom Dr. Lee had never met. The relevance of her testimony was mostly for the credibility of the underage prostitute, but since the government did not put the…