Summary
This Second Circuit opinion affirms the conviction of Martin Concepcion for sex trafficking a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 1591. The court rejects Concepcion's facial and as-applied void-for-vagueness challenge to the statute's "reasonable opportunity to observe" provision, finding it provides fair notice and does not violate due process. Additionally, the court holds that the district court did not err in using a general verdict form rather than a special verdict form, as the case did not require complex jury interrogatories.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c) is unconstitutionally vague
- Whether the district court erred by using a general verdict form instead of a special verdict form
Holdings
- Section 1591(c) is not void for vagueness; the phrase ‘reasonable opportunity to observe’ provides adequate notice and is not impermissibly indefinite.
- The district court’s use of a general verdict form was proper; no reversible error was shown.
Key quotations
“Section 1591(c) is not unconstitutionally vague, and the district court did not err in its use of a general verdict form.” (at 1)
“The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.” (at 1)
Factual background
In October 2019 Martin Concepcion recruited 16‑year‑old Camilla Rodriguez, a runaway, and, together with two roommates, trafficked her for commercial sex over three weeks, during which he had repeated face‑to‑face interactions, collected money, and learned she was sixteen. The operation involved photographing, advertising, and violent threats.
Procedural history
The government indicted Concepcion on three counts, including sex‑trafficking of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 1591. After trial, a jury convicted him on all counts. The district court denied his motion for judgment of acquittal and used a general verdict form. Concepcion appealed, challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c) as vague and arguing the verdict form was improper.