Background
Brian Johnson operated a fraudulent scheme posing as a CEO and employees of a fake adult film studio. He solicited women to audition, promising financial compensation and modeling contracts. During these meetings, he took nude photographs and engaged in sexual acts with the women. One victim, identified as Jami, was sixteen years old when they met. She later provided Johnson with a photograph of her driver’s license proving her age. Johnson continued to possess and distribute her nude images online despite knowing she was a minor. He was convicted of seven sex trafficking counts and three child pornography counts. The district court denied his motion for acquittal on sex trafficking charges but granted it on child pornography charges, then sentenced him to four hundred twenty months in prison.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that Section fifteen ninety-one does not require the defendant to believe the promises had value, but rather focuses on whether the victim subjectively attached value to the promises. The victims testified they would not have engaged in the sexual acts without the fraudulent promises, satisfying the commercial sex act element. Regarding child pornography, the court found sufficient evidence of knowledge that the victim was underage based on her emails and the driver’s license photo she sent. The district court erred by reweighing this evidence and lowering the burden of proof. The court affirmed the sex trafficking convictions, reversed the acquittal on child pornography convictions, and remanded for resentencing.
What it means going forward
Defendants can be convicted of sex trafficking using fraudulent promises as the thing of value, even if the promises were never intended to be fulfilled. Prosecutors may rely on victim testimony and contextual evidence to prove knowledge of a minor’s age in child pornography cases without needing expert testimony on physical appearance.