## Facts

- Mi Sun Cho had contacts in prostitution networks and arranged placements of women at brothels, including based on age and appearance.
- Cho and Mei Hua Jin previously worked together at a Connecticut brothel and at a prostitution business Cho operated in Manhattan.
- In October 2010, Jin called Cho from Atlantic City seeking work as a prostitute; Cho knew Jin was calling from New Jersey.
- Cho arranged for an intermediary (a confidential informant with an ongoing relationship with Cho) to tell Jin that a position at a Manhattan brothel was available and to discuss Jin’s travel to New York for that placement.
- Jin bought her own bus ticket and traveled from Atlantic City to Manhattan, then took the subway to Flushing, Queens, where Cho and the intermediary met her.
- Cho and the intermediary drove Jin toward the designated Manhattan brothel; Cho exited the car before arrival.
- The brothel rejected Jin because she was “too old,” and Jin returned to Flushing.
- A federal jury convicted Cho of conspiracy and substantive sex-trafficking/transportation-related counts, including transporting or willfully causing transportation in interstate commerce under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2421 and 2(b).
- The district court denied Cho’s post-verdict motions for acquittal/new trial, applied a four-level organizer/leader enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), and imposed a 70-month sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Cho transported Jin in interstate commerce, or willfully caused Jin to be transported, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2421 and 2(b), where Jin purchased her own ticket and traveled voluntarily.
2. Whether the district court’s evidentiary limitations—particularly on evidence about the voluntariness of women’s travel and prostitution—collectively violated Cho’s due process right to present a defense.
3. Whether the district court erred in applying a four-level organizer/leader enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), and whether the 70-month sentence was substantively unreasonable.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence.
- The court held the evidence permitted a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Cho caused interstate transportation for purposes of §§ 2421 and 2(b).
- The court found no reversible error in the evidentiary rulings and no due process violation because Cho retained a meaningful opportunity to present her theory.
- The court upheld the organizer/leader enhancement and found the 70-month sentence within the range of reasonableness under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

## Legal Principles

- A defendant may “cause” interstate transportation under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b) without paying for or personally executing travel, if the defendant’s conduct materially brings about the interstate movement for prohibited purposes.
- On sufficiency review, appellate courts view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and ask whether any rational juror could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Trial courts may limit marginally relevant defense evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 to avoid confusion and distraction, without violating due process, so long as the defendant is not effectively barred from presenting a defense theory.
- A four-level organizer/leader enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) is supported by evidence of decision-making authority, coordination through intermediaries, and an operation involving five or more participants or that is otherwise extensive.
- Substantive reasonableness review is deferential; a sentence will be affirmed if it reflects a permissible application of the § 3553(a) factors.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit affirmed Mi Sun Cho’s sex-trafficking-related convictions and 70-month sentence, holding that orchestrating a woman’s interstate travel for placement at a brothel can satisfy “causing” transportation under §§ 2421 and 2(b), that limiting evidence on “voluntary prostitution” did not deny due process, and that the organizer/leader enhancement and overall sentence were reasonable.


United States v. Cho, 713 F.3d 716 (2d Cir. 2013)