Anthony Carter, who described himself as a pimp, transported two victims, an adult and a minor, from Atlanta to Miami ahead of the 2020 Super Bowl to engage in commercial sex work. A grand jury indicted Carter on four counts: sex trafficking of the adult victim, transporting the adult victim for sexual activity, sex trafficking of the minor victim, and transporting the minor victim for sexual activity. At trial, the minor victim did not testify but made statements to police officers during a sting operation where she was set up for a sex date. Carter challenged his convictions on three grounds: the admission of the minor's statements violated the Confrontation Clause and hearsay rules, the jury instructions constructively amended the indictment, and the evidence was insufficient to prove he transported the victims for sex work. The district court convicted Carter on all counts and sentenced him to 300 months in prison plus ten years of supervised release.
The Eleventh Circuit addressed the Confrontation Clause challenge first. Applying the Supreme Court's 'primary purpose' test from Davis and Clark, the court determined the minor's statements were nontestimonial. The officers were responding to an ongoing emergency involving a trafficking ring with an at-large perpetrator, not merely gathering evidence for prosecution. The minor was emotionally distressed, made the statements spontaneously without police questioning, and the statements helped identify a dangerous individual while the crime was unfolding. Even if the statements were erroneously admitted as hearsay, the error was harmless given the mountain of other evidence, including the adult victim's testimony and physical evidence found in the car. Regarding constructive amendment, the court acknowledged that the jury instructions for two counts included terms like 'debauchery' and 'any lewd act' that were not in the indictment. However, because Carter failed to object at trial, the court reviewed for plain error. The court found no plain error because the evidence of commercial sex work was so substantial that the jury likely would have convicted Carter regardless of the erroneous terms. Finally, on sufficiency of evidence, the court rejected Carter's argument that his dominant purpose was employment at a club rather than sex work. Precedent holds that one dominant purpose being prostitution is sufficient, and the court found ample evidence, including online ads, that facilitating sex work was a primary goal of the trip.
The decision reinforces the application of the 'ongoing emergency' exception to the Confrontation Clause in sex trafficking sting operations, allowing the admission of distressed victim statements made to police. It clarifies that while jury instructions must strictly track the indictment, minor deviations that do not mislead a jury in the face of overwhelming evidence will not result in reversal under plain error review. The case is remanded for the district court to finalize restitution calculations, but the convictions and sentence stand.