The University of Michigan Law School

         The University of Michigan Law School
 
HomeClinical ProgramsHuman Trafficking CasesCase Display

Case View

 Case Documents

There are no documents to display for this case.

 Case Links - links to external documents

Link to Document

 
Case Details

  
CASE NAME:United States v. Dennis Paris
ALL PLAINTIFFS:United States
ALL DEFENDANTS:Dennis Paris (also known as Rahmyti), Ronald Martinez, Brian Forbes, Antonio Dove, Jerome Hargrove, Warren Williams, Christopher Fanning, Kazimierz Sulewski, Steven Tanuis, Shanaya Hicks
CITATION:2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39276 (D. Conn.), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31212 (D. Conn.)
DOCKET NUMBER:03:06-cr-64
SOURCE:DOJ/US Attorney Website or Press Release, Lexis Search, News Article
TYPE OF CASE:Criminal
RELATED CASE CITATION:
TYPE OF TRIAL:Jury
TRIAL JUDGE(S):Christopher F. Droney
YEAR OF ARREST:
YEAR OF VERDICT:2007
TYPE OF COURT:Federal
STATE:Connecticut
FEDERAL DISTRICT:District Court
STATE COUNTY:
AGE OF VICTIM(S):Adult
NUMBER OF VICTIMS:4 +
GENDER OF VICTIM(S):Female
VICTIM'S COUNTRY OF ORIGIN:United States
METHOD OF ENTRY INTO THE U.S.:
WAS VICTIM CHARGED WITH A CRIME:
NUMBER OF DEFENDANT(S):10
GENDER OF DEFENDANT(S):Female and Male
TYPE OF INDUSTRY:Sex
CASE CATEGORIZATION:Commercial Sexual Exploitation/Prostitution
FIRST CHARGE:Conspiracy
FIRST CHARGE US/STATE CODE CITATION:18 U.S.C. § 371
FIRST CHARGE VERDICT/PLEA:Guilty Verdict
FIRST CHARGE SENTENCE:60 months
SECOND CHARGE:Sex Trafficking of Children or by Force, Fraud or Coercion
SECOND CHARGE US/STATE CODE CITATION:18 U.S.C. § 1591
SECOND CHARGE VERDICT/PLEA:Guilty Verdict
SECOND CHARGE SENTENCE:360 months
THIRD CHARGE:Use of an Interstate Facility to Promote Prostitution
THIRD CHARGE US/STATE CODE CITATION:18 U.S.C. § 1952
THIRD CHARGE VERDICT/PLEA:Dismissed
THIRD CHARGE SENTENCE:
FOURTH CHARGE:Racketeering- Prostitution
FOURTH CHARGE US/STATE CODE CITATION:18 U.S.C. § 1952
FOURTH CHARGE VERDICT/PLEA:Guilty Verdict
FOURTH CHARGE SENTENCE:60 months
FIFTH CHARGE:Money Laundering
FIFTH CHARGE US/STATE CODE CITATION:18 U.S.C. § 1956
FIFTH CHARGE VERDICT/PLEA:Guilty Verdict
FIFTH CHARGE SENTENCE:
CORE TERMS:
SENTENCING OPINION CITATION:
LENGTH OF GREATEST SENTENCE:360 months
RESTITUTION REQUIRED:$46,116.80
FINE IMPOSED:
FORFEITURE IMPOSED:
FIRST CLAIM:
FIRST CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
FIRST CLAIM RESULT:
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR FIRST CLAIM:
SECOND CLAIM:
SECOND CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
SECOND CLAIM RESULT:
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR SECOND CLAIM:
THIRD CLAIM:
THIRD CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
THIRD CLAIM RESULT:
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR THIRD CLAIM:
FOURTH CLAIM:
FOURTH CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
FOURTH CLAIM RESULT:
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR FOURTH CLAIM:
FIFTH CLAIM:
FIFTH CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
FIFTH CLAIM RESULT:
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR FIFTH CLAIM:
SIXTH CLAIM:
SIXTH CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
SIXTH CLAIM RESULT:
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR SIXTH CLAIM:
TOTAL AWARD:
APPEAL:Yes
EXPLANATION OF APPEAL:
APPELLATE OPINION CITATION:621 F.3d 101 (2nd Cir. 2010); 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 19380
HOLDING OF APPEALS COURT:Affirm
APPEAL STILL PENDING?:No
SUMMARY:

Paris was convicted on various counts of conspiracy, sex trafficking of a minor, sex trafficking through force, fraud or coercion, money laundering, and racketeering related to a prostitution ring he was found to operate in Hartford, Connecticut. He called the ring an "escort service" and claimed the sexual acts performed were the result of independent arrangements between the victims and the clients: the victims did them, Paris argued, for extra money or their own enjoyment.

Paris shared the victims and the proceeds from their "calls" with other defendants. He claimed these defendants were his competitors. The court found they were his co-conspirators. Cell phone and credit card use contributed to the conspiracy and money laundering convictions. Physical abuse of and verbal threats to the victims led to the coercion charge. Paris was found to have consciously avoided knowing the victim's age.

Approval Status:Approved
Approver Comments:
            
EDIT

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michigan Law Wordmark Print View