United States v. Johnelle Bell

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that “[e]ven where an affidavit is not available until after trial, if the factual basis for the testimony in the affidavit existed before trial,” it may not be the basis for a new trial (citation omitted)
• holding that 22 U.S.C. § 7101’s citation to and rejection of the narrow scope of United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988), means that the scope of § 7101 must at least include the scope of Kozminski
• explaining “prostitu- tion histories of these women do not preclude” a conviction because “the evidence shows” that “they did not want to be his prostitutes”
• noting § 1591(a) is defined in the disjunctive so the government need only prove the defendant “knew or recklessly disregarded that force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion would be used on the[] women”
• finding sufficient evidence where defendant “physically assaulted at least one of the prostitutes, threatened the physical well-being of several others and their families, made false promises and statements to induce their compliance, and coerced them into committing these acts for his profit”
• “We have recognized that a witness’s failure to appear before trial to exculpate a defendant . . . does not constitute newly discovered evidence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).