Defendants ran a multi-state, truck stop, prostitution ring that exploited women and girls. Defendants set prices and wired money among themselves while running a ring that operated at truck stops in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Arkansas, Virginia, Georgia, Maryland, Tennessee, the District of Columbia, California, Florida, Nevada, Texas, and Louisiana. The Defendants lured girls with promises of love and wealth, and then trapped them and forced them to become prostitutes. One defendant bragged that he had fractured his hand while beating a woman working for him as a prostitute for not making enough money; another defendant broke the nose of a woman working for him.
1st Instance:
Court: United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Location: Pennsylvania Date of decision: 8 June 2007
Reference: United States v. Franklin Robinson, et al., 513 F. Supp. 2d 169 (2007)
Outcome: the court denied the defendants’ motion to suppress wiretapping evidence (see comments and significant features below) and the defendants plead guilty.
2nd Instance:
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Date of decision: 8 July 2011
Reference: United States v. Robinson, 436 Fed. Appx. 82 (3rd Cir. 2011)
Outcome: The court upheld the sentence enhancements, despite Robinson’s appeal.
3rd Instance:
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Date of decision: 28 November 2011
Reference: Robinson v. United States, 32 S. Ct. 791 (2011) (cert petition denied)
Outcome: Robinson’s writ of certiorari seeking review of the Third Circuit decision was denied.
Defendant Franklin Robinson was charged with crimes related to prostitution of adults and minors and money laundering. He plead guilty to the charges and then appealed his sentence.
F. Robert Scott, Sr., pled guilty to conspiracy charges. The court’s consideration of his pre-trial motion seeking to dismiss charges against him under the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is worth noting: Scott noted that on December 6, 2003, he was arrested in Lucas County, Ohio, and charged with kidnapping, unlawful sexual contact with a minor, and promoting prostitution. On April 12, 2004, he pleaded guilty to promoting prostitution and was sentenced to six months imprisonment. Because the allegations contained in the superseding indictment for this case were similar to those charged under state law in Ohio in 2003, Scott argued the federal government could not charge him again for the “same crime”. The Court denied this argument, noting that the dual-sovereignty doctrine allows the federal government to prosecute a defendant for violation of federal law, even if, like this case, the same defendant has been prosecuted for the same criminal acts under state law. United States v. Robinson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17629, 20-22 (M.D. Pa. 2007).
The District Court also noted that the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has questioned and criticized the dual-sovereignty doctrine, but stressed that the Supreme Court has not overturned the rule.
18 USC 371
18 USC 2422(a), 2421
18 USC 1952(a)
Robinson appealed, challenging his sentence on the grounds that the District Court did not make sufficient findings of fact to support the offense level calculated using the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2G1.3 (2007), with cross-reference to section 2A3.1 Robinson’s arguments were: Brutal acts against prostituted victims should be separated from intent to prostitute them The record did not support the Vulnerable Victim enhancements (sections 3A1.1(b)(1) and (b)(2)). Obstruction of justice enhancement was not supported by evidence. Leader/organizer enhancement was not supported by the evidence. The Third Circuit noted and summarized all the evidence that supported the sentence enhancements Robinson challenged (Robinson and other conspirators engaged in coercive and physically violent conduct to make their victims fearful and thus cooperative in prostitution, the victims were young girls one of whom was a minor with a cognitive impairment, many were homeless or otherwise troubled, Robinson was part of a plan to prevent a victim from testifying against a co-conspirator and pimp, and there is evidence Robinson coached at least one other co-conspirator/pimp in the operation). Given the record that adequately supported every challenged sentence enhancement, the Circuit Court upheld the decision of the District Court.
18 USC 371
18 USC 1591
18 USC 1592(a)(3) and 2
18 USC 2253
18 USC 1952(a)(3) and 2
18 USC 1591 and 2
18 USC 2423(a) and 2
18 USC 371
18 USC 1952(a)(3) and 2
18 USC 1591
18 USC 2424(a) and 2
18 USC 1952(a)(3) and (2)
18 USC 2423(a) and 2
18 USC 1591 and 2
18 USC 1956
18 USC 2253
18 USC 371
18 USC 2423(a) and 2
18 USC 371
18 USC 2423(a) and 2
18 USC 1952(a)(3) and 2
18 USC 1591 and 2
18 USC 2253
18 USC 4
18 USC 1952(a)(3) and 2
18 USC 371
18 USC 371
18 USC 1952(a)(3) and 2
18 USC 2421 and 2
18 USC 2421
18 USC 371
18 USC 1952(a)(3) and 2
18 USC 2421
18 USC 371
18 USC 1952(a)(3) and 2
18 USC 1591 and 2
18 USC 2253
18 USC 371
18 USC 1952(a)(3) and 2
18 USC 2422 and 2
18 USC 371
18 USC 2422(a) and 2
18 USC 2253
18 USC 1952(a)(3) and 2
18 USC 371
18 USC 1591 and 2
18 USC 2423(a) and 2
18 USC 1956(h)
18 USC 2253
Forfeiture
18 USC 1952(a)(3) and 2
18 USC 1956(h)
18 USC 2253
Forfeiture ordered
18 USC 371
18 USC 1952(a)(3) and 2
18 USC 2422(a) and 2
18 USC 1956(h)
Withdrawn
18 USC 1591
18 USC 371
18 USC 1591
18 USC 2423(a) and 2
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Criminal docket No: 1:05-CR-443
United States v. Franklin Robinson, et al., 513 F. Supp. 2d 169 (2007)
United States v. Robinson, 436 Fed. Appx. 82 (3rd Cir. 2011)
News Article: http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fire/2005/12/17/31-accused-of-running-child-sex-ring.html
The US Department of Justice called this one of the “largest coordinated enforcement actions ever taken against child prostitution rings in the United States.” (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2005/December/05_crm_677.html) During investigation, the Government applied for and was granted authorization to intercept wire communications through cell phones of about 19 individuals under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1986 (18 USC 2510-2522). During pre-trial motions, the defendants moved to suppress this evidence, arguing that the government did not meet the legal requirements: that the wiretapping was necessary to the investigate the activity in the indictment. Defendants argued that the wiretap evidence was unnecessary because by the time the government obtained that evidence, it already had enough for probable cause. The Government prevailed after the court found the wiretapping was necessary to dismantle the interstate prostitution and money-laundering conspiracy.