## Facts

- William Calvin McCray was indicted in the Northern District of Georgia for sex trafficking of a minor and related offenses involving a minor identified as A.B., including conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of a minor, sex trafficking of a minor, transportation of a minor, and obstruction of enforcement of the sex-trafficking statute.
- As trial approached, the government filed motions in limine addressing trial attendance and evidentiary issues.
- One motion asked the court to allow A.B. to be present in the courtroom for the trial and related proceedings even though she would testify, relying on the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA).
- The government argued that A.B. was the only victim in the case, so she would not be influenced by other victims’ testimony; she had already given multiple interviews to law enforcement, including videotaped interviews that could be used for impeachment if her testimony changed; and other evidence would corroborate her testimony.
- McCray opposed A.B.’s in-court attendance and requested that, if she wished to observe, she be required to watch by remote video feed to reduce the risk of prejudice and alleged sympathy-based effects on the jury, and to reduce the possibility of tailored testimony.
- The government also sought to admit McCray’s prior, under-oath statements from a Rule 11 guilty-plea colloquy in a separate criminal contempt proceeding arising from his violation of a no-contact order entered in the trafficking case.
- In that contempt matter, McCray admitted under oath that he violated the court’s no-contact restrictions by arranging a telephone call from jail that connected him to A.B. and included discussion related to the underlying criminal case.
- In addition, the government moved to bar McCray from arguing that his subjective belief about A.B.’s age was a defense to the transportation count under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a).

## Issues

1. Whether the CVRA entitled A.B., the victim and a testifying witness, to attend the trial in the courtroom, or whether McCray showed a basis to require her to observe remotely by video.
2. Whether McCray’s sworn admissions during a Rule 11 guilty-plea colloquy in a related criminal contempt case were admissible at his trafficking trial as substantive evidence.
3. Whether McCray could argue that his belief about A.B.’s age was a defense to transportation of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a).

## Decision

- The court granted the government’s motion to allow A.B. to attend the trial in the courtroom under the CVRA and denied McCray’s request to restrict her to remote video observation.
- The court granted the government’s motion to admit McCray’s sworn contempt-plea colloquy statements as statements of a party opponent under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A).
- The court granted the government’s motion to preclude McCray from presenting mistake-of-age (or lack-of-knowledge-of-age) as a defense to the § 2423(a) transportation count.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, a crime victim generally has the right to attend public court proceedings, including trial, even if the victim will testify.
- A court may limit a victim-witness’s presence only on a concrete showing that the victim’s courtroom attendance would compromise the fairness of the trial; generalized concerns about sympathy or speculative tailoring are not enough by themselves.
- A defendant’s own prior statements, when offered against him, are not hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A).
- Sworn admissions made during an accepted guilty-plea colloquy may be admitted in a later trial when they qualify as the defendant’s own statements and no specific exclusionary rule applies.
- For transportation of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), the government is not required to prove the defendant knew the victim was under 18; a defendant’s belief about the victim’s age is not a defense to that count.

## Conclusion

In this pretrial order, the court allowed the minor victim, A.B., to attend the trial in the courtroom under the CVRA because McCray did not show that her presence would compromise trial fairness, admitted McCray’s sworn contempt-plea admissions as non-hearsay party-opponent statements, and barred McCray from arguing mistake-of-age as a defense to transportation of a minor under § 2423(a).


United States v. McCray, 2017 WL 6471654 (2017)