## Facts

- Martavious Detrel Banks Keys (also known as “Cheese”) was prosecuted in the Northern District of Texas for sex trafficking involving two minor victims.
- A jury convicted Keys of two counts of sex trafficking of a child and one count of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591.
- At trial, the government called law-enforcement officers who had participated in interrogating Keys and investigating the trafficking allegations.
- During direct examination, the prosecutor asked two officers, based on their full investigations, whether they believed one victim had been forced to engage in commercial sex acts and whether the other victim had been compelled to engage in commercial sex acts.
- The prosecutor then asked who forced or compelled the victims to engage in commercial sex acts, and both officers answered that Keys did.
- The prosecutor also elicited testimony that Keys had the opportunity to observe both victims (relevant to the knowledge/recklessness element tied to the victims’ ages).
- One officer further testified that he did not believe some of Keys’s statements made during the interview.
- Defense counsel did not object to these opinion questions or answers at trial.
- After sentencing, Keys appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether Counts One and Three of the indictment were multiplicitous in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
2. Whether the district court plainly erred by admitting lay-opinion testimony from law-enforcement officers effectively stating that Keys committed the sex-trafficking offenses (an ultimate-issue/guilt opinion).
3. Whether the district court plainly erred by admitting an officer’s lay opinion that Keys was not truthful during his interview.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment.
- The court rejected Keys’s multiplicity challenge, concluding the charged counts were not the same offense for double-jeopardy purposes.
- Because Keys did not object at trial, the court reviewed the evidentiary complaints for plain error.
- Assuming arguendo that some of the officers’ opinions were improper, the court held Keys failed to show reversible plain error, including a failure to show an effect on substantial rights in light of the record as a whole.

## Legal Principles

- An indictment is multiplicitous only if it charges a single offense in more than one count; courts apply the Blockburger elements test by asking whether each count requires proof of a fact the other does not.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1591, trafficking theories based on minor status and trafficking theories based on force, fraud, or coercion can constitute distinct offenses when they require different proof.
- Federal Rule of Evidence 701 limits lay opinion testimony to opinions that are rationally based on the witness’s perception, helpful to the jury, and not based on specialized knowledge.
- Federal Rule of Evidence 704(a) does not bar opinion testimony merely because it touches an ultimate issue, but testimony—especially from law enforcement—that effectively tells the jury the defendant is guilty or decides credibility is generally disfavored.
- A witness ordinarily may not give a direct opinion that another witness (including the defendant) was lying, because credibility determinations are for the jury.
- When a party fails to object contemporaneously, appellate review is for plain error; the defendant must show a clear or obvious error that affected substantial rights, and the court retains discretion to correct it only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

## Conclusion

United States v. Keys affirmed Keys’s § 1591 convictions, holding that the challenged counts were not multiplicitous and that, under plain-error review, the admission of officers’ lay opinions identifying Keys as the person who forced or compelled the victims and questioning parts of his interview responses did not warrant reversal.


United States v. Keys, 2018 WL 4002028 (2018)