Background
Brandon Marquis Jennings was convicted in 2020 of multiple counts including sex trafficking, child pornography, and interstate transportation for prostitution. Following his conviction and a direct appeal, the Government moved for a protective order under Section fifteen hundred fourteen of Title eighteen of the United States Code to prohibit Jennings from contacting a victim named T.C. who testified at his trial. The Government presented evidence that Jennings had attempted to contact T.C. through third parties via social media in 2021, seeking her address and pictures of their child. An evidentiary hearing was held where Jennings testified he sought contact to see his daughter, though he admitted he had never established paternity or sought custody in family court. The district court granted the motion, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Jennings had harassed T.C. and that his stated purpose was not credible.
The court’s reasoning
The Court of Appeals reviewed the grant of the protective order for an abuse of discretion. The court noted that Section fifteen hundred fourteen of Title eighteen of the United States Code authorizes protective orders to prohibit harassment that causes substantial emotional distress and serves no legitimate purpose. The appellate court accorded considerable deference to the district court’s factual findings regarding witness credibility and demeanor. The court found that the district court reasonably concluded Jennings’s failure to establish paternity or seek custody over seven years, combined with his history of abuse and threats, undermined his claim of a legitimate purpose. The court also noted that Jennings’s testimony suggested his contact attempts were part of a broader pattern of manipulation and harassment rather than a genuine desire to connect with his child.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the ability of federal courts to issue protective orders under Section fifteen hundred fourteen of Title eighteen of the United States Code to shield victims from post-conviction harassment, even when a defendant claims a legitimate purpose for contact. It signals that courts will closely scrutinize a defendant’s history of abuse and lack of prior legal engagement with a child when evaluating the credibility of such claims.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download