United States v. Law

990 F.3d 1058

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Rita LAW, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-2345

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted October 28, 2020

Decided March 11, 2021

Nathaniel Whalen, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Hammond, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Steven H. Jesser, Attorney, Steven H. Jesser, Attorney At Law, P.C., Glenview, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before Ripple, Wood, and Brennan, Circuit Judges.

Brennan, Circuit Judge.

A jury convicted Rita Law of sex trafficking which the district court described as "a modern-day form of slavery." On appeal, Law challenges several evidentiary rulings at trial, the sufficiency of the evidence for her convictions, and her sentence of 360 months’ imprisonment. We find no errors by the district court, so we affirm.

I. Background

Rita Law owned and operated three massage spas which also offered sex services to customers in northwest Indiana.¹ HV and XC were two of Law's "employees" providing these services to clients.² HV was born in Vietnam, where she met Law in 2004. Soon after their meeting, Law introduced HV to Gary Toma and encouraged them to marry. HV did not know at the time that Toma was not only Law's friend but also a customer at Law's Duneland spa. Without this knowledge, HV agreed to marry Toma. Their engagement allowed her to obtain a fiancée visa to come to the United States.

By the time HV arrived in Chicago, she was pregnant with Toma's child, spoke limited English, and knew no one else. Law met and drove HV to one of her spas in Indiana. Once at the spa, she forced HV to provide sex services to customers. Law did so in part by claiming Toma owed her a debt and that HV would have to work at the spa to repay it.

Like HV, XC was living abroad when she first heard about Law. A friend told XC that she could make $25 to $30 an hour working for Law in the United States. So XC traveled from China to Chicago with few personal contacts, almost no money, and knowing little English. When XC first arrived at one of Law's spas, she thought she would be providing nonsexual massages. But Law soon bullied XC into providing sex services and demanded money for room and board.

Law intimidated HV and XC into working at the spas under brutal conditions. At trial, HV testified she serviced six to nine men over a fifteen-hour workday. Law prevented the women from leaving the spa unaccompanied, declined to pay them hourly wages, and provided only one meal each day. To maintain control over HV and XC, Law confiscated their passports and monitored their activities by observing them using security cameras installed throughout the spas. Law also exerted psychological control over the women by falsely claiming they would be arrested if they were discovered and by physically intimidating them. For example, one time after XC and Law argued, Law did nothing in response to XC enduring violent treatment by a spa customer during a sex act. Another example of Law's cruelty is when HV called Law and told her she was experiencing severe bleeding and feared a miscarriage, Law did nothing and told her to return to bed. The next day when a doctor confirmed the miscarriage and suggested HV rest, Law forced her back to work at the spa that afternoon.

HV and XC eventually came to the authorities’ attention. XC was arrested in a sting operation at Law's spa, and the police discovered HV hiding in a garage where she sought shelter after Law abandoned her. Law visited XC in jail and tried to get her to sign a form that Law said was a green card application, but actually would have given XC's power of attorney to Law. From information obtained in interviews of HV and XC, Hong Kong authorities arrested Law in October 2013.

Law was indicted on four charges: one count each of trafficking XC and HV for involuntary servitude in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1590(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 ; one count of transporting XC for the purpose of prostitution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 ; and one count of using an interstate facility to promote prostitution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.

At trial, Department of Homeland Security agents Philip Coduti and Angus Lowe testified for the government. Coduti's testimony included statements that the FBI was investigating a spa in Gary, Indiana, and that it believed Homeland Security was the appropriate agency to interview XC. Coduti described his interview of XC in which he learned that she did not intend to sign the power of attorney document Law had encouraged her to sign and she was a Chinese national who wanted to go home. Lowe testified local authorities told him HV may be part of a prostitution ring. He stated that during his interviews of HV, she informed him that she provided sex services at Law's spa and that she came to the United States to marry Toma.

Law objected as hearsay to those portions of the agents’ testimonies told to them outside of court. The district court overruled the objection and admitted the statements for the non-hearsay purpose of describing the course of investigation, rather than for the truth of the matter asserted. The court also repeatedly instructed the jury that it could not consider these passages for their truth.

An affidavit that Law prepared to avoid further charges was also the subject of dispute. At trial she objected to its admission, arguing she could not have signed the affidavit because she was not in the United States at the time. Law set aside her objection after the government showed that Law was in the country when the affidavit was drafted. After determining that Law had no further objections, the district court admitted statements from the affidavit.

Following a two-week trial, a jury convicted Law on all four counts in the indictment. Law's Sentencing Guidelines calculations included various enhancements and cross references³ because she committed another crime during the trafficking offense, she forced HV and XC to engage in sexual acts out of fear, and she obstructed justice. Law made numerous objections to these enhancements and other calculations which the district court overruled. After considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the district court sentenced Law to 360 months’ imprisonment, below the Sentencing Guidelines range of life imprisonment and the statutory maximum of 660 months under 18 U.S.C. § 1590.

II. Discussion

Law raises many challenges to the jury trial and to her sentence, but we focus on those that may have merit—her objections to some of the testimony of the agents, the admission of statements in her affidavit, the sufficiency of the evidence for her convictions, and her sentence. Cf. United States v. Friedman , 971 F.3d 700, 709–10 (7th Cir. 2020) ("A circumspect approach boosts credibility, while raising every conceivable challenge on appeal can dilute the persuasiveness of plausible arguments.").

A. Testimony of Agents Coduti and Lowe

Law's most prominent argument is her appeal of the admission into evidence of portions of the testimonies of the Department of Homeland Security agents. Specifically, Law continues to dispute that those agents were allowed to testify about statements others made to them during investigatory interviews. These statements described the course of the investigation, so to the district court they were not inadmissible hearsay. We review the district court's decision to admit this evidence for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Thomas, 986 F.3d 723, 729 (7th Cir. 2021).

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c)(1). The agents testified to statements made to them in interviews and conversations during their investigations. But not all such statements are hearsay. When an out-of-court statement is offered for its effect on the listener, and not for its truth, it is not hearsay. Torry v. City of Chicago , 932 F.3d 579, 585 (7th Cir. 2019) (concluding that descriptions in affidavit were not hearsay because they were not offered for their truth but "to show that a competent officer aware of that information could conclude that there was reasonable suspicion"). A derivative of this principle is that "statements offered to ‘establish the course of the investigation,’ rather than to prove the truth of the matter asserted, are nonhearsay and therefore admissible." United States v. Taylor , 569 F.3d 742, 749 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Akinrinade , 61 F.3d 1279, 1283 (7th Cir. 1995) ); see also United States v. Marchan , 935 F.3d 540, 546 (7th Cir. 2019). "Course of investigation" evidence is relevant because "if the jury would not otherwise understand why an investigation targeted a particular defendant, testimony [about the course of investigation] ‘could dispel an accusation that the officers were officious intermeddlers staking out [the defendant] for nefarious purposes.’ " United States v. Cruse , 805 F.3d 795, 810 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Silva , 380 F.3d 1018, 1020 (7th Cir. 2004) ).

Admitting these portions of the agents’ testimonies was not an abuse of discretion. These statements helped connect the dots between the discovery of HV in the garage and Law's extradition from Hong Kong. The admitted testimony was copious, and this court has expressed concern about the scope of this type of non-hearsay. See Marchan , 935 F.3d at 546 ("[W]e are reluctant to permit ‘course of the investigation’ rationale for fear of its abuse or misuse[.]") (internal quote omitted); Silva , 380 F.3d at 1020 (rejecting course of investigation rationale for admitting evidence when the evidence was not relevant except for its truth). But this complex investigation required explanation and context. It involved several businesses, multiple witnesses, and spanned two continents. This case differs from Silva where the government sought to admit evidence describing the "course of investigation" that...