## Facts

- Anthony Thompson was indicted on federal charges that included sex trafficking.
- The United States alleged that Thompson recruited three women to work as prostitutes in a commercial-sex operation.
- The government alleged Thompson used physical force and psychological coercion to control the women.
- The government alleged Thompson compelled the women to engage in commercial sex acts and to turn over their earnings to him.
- Before trial, the government moved in limine to bar Thompson from offering evidence about the alleged victims’ sexual behavior outside the time period charged in the indictment, including evidence that the women engaged in prostitution before and after the charged period.
- Thompson opposed the motion, arguing that excluding the evidence would impair his ability to present a defense under the Fifth Amendment and to cross-examine the alleged victims under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.

## Issues

1. Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 412 bars a defendant in a sex-trafficking prosecution from introducing evidence of the alleged victims’ other sexual behavior (including prostitution) occurring before and after the time period charged in the indictment.
2. Whether excluding such evidence violates the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to present a defense or the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
3. Whether any category of the excluded evidence is nevertheless admissible under Rule 412’s limited exceptions, including the exception for evidence whose exclusion would violate constitutional rights.

## Decision

- The court granted the government’s motion in limine in substantial part, limiting Thompson’s ability to introduce evidence of the alleged victims’ sexual behavior outside the charged time period.
- The court treated the proffered evidence—such as prior or subsequent prostitution—as “other sexual behavior” covered by Federal Rule of Evidence 412 and therefore presumptively inadmissible when offered to attack a victim’s sexual character or suggest sexual predisposition.
- The court concluded that broad evidence of the victims’ sexual histories outside the charged period was not admissible merely to impeach credibility or to suggest the women engaged in commercial sex independent of Thompson.
- The court rejected Thompson’s Fifth Amendment and Confrontation Clause arguments as a basis for wholesale admission of the victims’ sexual histories, reasoning that the Constitution does not entitle a defendant to present otherwise inadmissible sexual-history evidence without a specific, case-linked showing of relevance and necessity.
- The court indicated that Rule 412’s exceptions (including the “constitutionally required” exception) are narrow and require a focused proffer; generalized references to prostitution history outside the charged period were insufficient to justify admission.
- To the extent particular items of evidence might later be shown to fit a recognized exception or to be necessary to protect Thompson’s trial rights, the court left room for the parties to address those questions through specific offers of proof rather than admitting broad categories of sexual-history evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 412 generally prohibits evidence offered to show that an alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior or has a sexual predisposition.
- In cases involving alleged sexual misconduct, Rule 412 applies to exclude sexual-history evidence when the evidence is offered for character-based reasoning or generalized credibility attacks.
- Rule 412 contains limited exceptions, including an exception for evidence whose exclusion would violate the defendant’s constitutional rights; that exception is narrow and depends on a concrete showing that the evidence is necessary to a specific defense theory.
- The Fifth Amendment right to present a defense does not give a defendant an unrestricted right to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence; courts may impose reasonable evidentiary limits so long as the defendant retains a meaningful opportunity to present his theory of the case.
- The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, but it does not prevent a court from limiting cross-examination that is marginally relevant, cumulative, or aimed primarily at improper character inferences.
- Even when evidence is not barred by Rule 412, it must still satisfy general evidentiary requirements, including relevance and Rule 403 balancing.

## Conclusion

United States v. Thompson held that, in a federal sex-trafficking prosecution, Rule 412 bars most evidence of alleged victims’ sexual behavior—such as prostitution—occurring outside the charged timeframe, and that excluding such evidence generally does not violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to present a defense or Sixth Amendment confrontation rights absent a specific showing that the evidence fits a narrow Rule 412 exception or is constitutionally required.


United States v. Thompson, 178 F. Supp. 3d 86 (2016)