Dating pimps and hookers
On March 16, 2010, the Court conducted a Daubert hearing on the motion. Cooper was not "the right expert to provide profiling testimony on pimps and sex trafficking organizations". Lois Lee, a government witness, on the of pimps and on the pimp-prostitute relationship." The appellant objected to Dr. Lois Lee, the government's expert witness, testified on the of pimps and on the nature of the relationship between pimps and prostitutes. Lee testified: 1) "Sophisticated pimps usually travel in an intercity circuit with a group of ten to forty girls working for them" 2) "Recruits are usually vulnerable young women, often runaways who have been abused or neglected by their families" 3) "[A] pimp will encourage his prostitutes to compete for his affection by earning money, and will beat his prostitutes if they fail to adhere to his rules" 4) "Prostitutes are often so financially and psychologically dependent on their pimps that they are unable to leave even when they are beaten" 5) "Pimps usually spend the money earned by their prostitutes on drugs, clothes, and jewelry, since the ability to support a "flashy" lifestyle is a source of status in their subculture" 6) "On several ways in which the pimp-prostitute relationship ends-the prostitute becomes pregnant, goes on welfare, turns to more serious kinds of crime, commits suicide, or dies at the hands of a customer" A. Lee’s expert testimony was not relevant in the case and, therefore, should not have been admitted.
Lee’s testimony on the grounds that it was A) not relevant and, even if it was relevant, B) was unduly prejudicial. The court, however, ruled that Lee’s testimony on pimping and the pimp-prostitute relationship was relevant and helped illuminate critical issues in the case such as: 1) "Whether the appellant was in fact a pimp or rather, as Anderson claims, merely a gambler with a flashy lifestyle and a penchant for travel" 2) "Whether the government's young witnesses travelled with him quite independently, or as part of a pimp-prostitute relationship" 3) "The credibility of the government's prostitute-witnesses and reasons why they stayed with Anderson despite mistreatment" B.
The Government also sought to introduce evidence regarding one witness Dr. The court held that this would prevent defense counsel from investigating the reasoning and information in the opinion and was therefore inadmissible, contrary to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Testimony regarding the effects of prostitution rings on society at large or discussion about the violence used by pimps was irrelevant. 1988) Appellant Eddie Lee Anderson (aka "Fast Eddie") was convicted of a total of 19 violations of the Mann Act, for interstate transportation of females for prostitution and interstate transportation of minors for prostitution.
(US District Crt, Hawaii, 2010) Defendant filed a motion to preclude the testimony of Dr. Part of what the government needed to prove is that the victims prostituted themselves on behalf of the Defendant as their pimp because of force, fraud and coercion. Cooper to testify about (1) the typical means of targeting and recruiting prostitutes (2) information about the ways that pediatric development, family dysfunction, and the use of drugs can make adult and adolescent minor victims more susceptible to influence by sex traffickers, and (3) common ways that sex traffickers use force and coercion to maintain control over the victims' actions and to prevent them from leaving the relationship. Cooper has been qualified as an expert in court more than 300 times, qualified as an expert in federal courts fifteen to twenty times, and twice qualified in federal court as an expert regarding pimp-prostitute relationship dynamic. The court would allow testimony that would assist the jury in assessing the credibility of the prostitutes, in understanding the circumstances that make certain persons susceptible to prostitution, the reasons to stay with a pimp even when beaten and why victims may minimize the culpability of pimps. Cooper’s testimony, "jurors might presume that the victims did not want to escape from Defendant's alleged operation because they failed to run away on the occasions when they were beyond his physical grasp." , 851 F.2d 384 (US Court of Appeals, D. One of the issues in Anderson's appeal was whether it was "reversible error for the district court to admit the ‘expert’ testimony of Dr.
(ii) Fit - the testimony was relevant and would assist the trier of fact Dr.
Lee's testimony were relevant, it should have been excluded because "its probative value [was] substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." Appellant claimed that Dr.
Cooper intended to proffer was already subjected to peer review, that her conclusions were generally accepted in the field and that Dr.
Cooper was familiar with the body of literature addressing prostitution.
Social framework testimony seems especially appropriate in these cases as Monahan and Walker (2010) state: "[Social] frameworks often tell jurors something they do not already know, or disabuse them of common but erroneous perceptions.". It was irrelevant and would unduly prejudice the defendants.
Public Link: December 8, 2005 Defendants Williams and Hayes and 14 other accused were charged with thirty-two counts alleging a mutli-year, national conspiracy to engage in interstate sex trafficking of women and girls.