DOJ-OGR-00005998.jpg
Extracted Text (OCR)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document398 _ Filed 10/29/21 Page 43 of 52
(S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2007) (defendant’s prior narcotics and firearm transactions with the same
confidential informant not “inextricably intertwined” with the charged narcotics conspiracy, even
though the conduct was “generally similar to the conduct underlying the offenses charged in the
indictment”); United States v. Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d 367, 369-70 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (prior
similar money laundering transactions between defendant and cooperating witness not
“inextricably intertwined” with the charged money laundering offense or “necessary to complete
the story” of the charged conspiracy (emphasis in original)).
Testimony concerning the alleged rape should also be excluded because the S2
Indictment contains no allegations of rape and such testimony is therefore irrelevant to the
charged crimes. The government dismisses this point arguing that indictments do not need to
include all of the government’s evidence, and the terms “sexual activity” and “commercial sex
act” are broad enough to cover rape. See Resp. at 80. But this misses the point. The rape
allegations are irrelevant to the charges because the charges are based on sexual activity that was
illegal because the alleged victims were under the age of consent. The indictment does not
charge any crimes that are premised on sex acts that involve the use of force, like rape. For
example, Counts Five and Six charge sex trafficking offenses. See S2 Ind. 22-27. But they
do not charge the section of the statute that criminalizes sex trafficking that “was effected by
means of force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion.” 18 U.S.C. § 1591(b)(1). The government is
therefore off base when its states that “evidence of rape, where it occurs ... is the core conduct in
the case.” Resp. at 81. It is only the “core conduct” of the case when the indictment alleges
forcible sex acts. Indeed, the cases cited by the government prove this point. See Ex. E,
Indictment, United States v. English, No. 18 Cr. 492 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (defendant charged
with sex trafficking conspiracy “effected by means of force” under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(b)(1));
af
DOJ-OGR- 00005998
Extracted Information
Dates
Document Details
| Filename | DOJ-OGR-00005998.jpg |
| File Size | 745.3 KB |
| OCR Confidence | 94.4% |
| Has Readable Text | Yes |
| Text Length | 2,196 characters |
| Indexed | 2026-02-03 17:06:14.878956 |