Man Successfully Pro Se Appealed One Sex Trafficking Count But Gets Same 216 Months

Man Successfully Pro Se Appealed One Sex Trafficking Count But Gets Same 216 Months by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack SDNY COURTHOUSE, April 17 – A man sentenced to 216 months in prison for a 2018 sex trafficking charge has twice has twice won appeals in the Second Circuit, but still faces the 15 year (180 month) minimum on April 17.    On direct appeal his counsel challenged venue as to Count One - but on remand the judge found that Count Two had been abandoned on appeal. Then, pro se, he appealed ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and won.    For resentencing on April 17, he has asked to appear remotely, to avoid long travel - sometimes called Diesel Therapy -- and it was granted. The US Attorney's Office wrote in urging the same 216 month sentence be imposed, despite the two appellate wins. Inner City Press live tweeted on April 17: He asked to be present by video today, to avoid weeks-long transport from prison. https://innercitypress.com/sdny145acotepurcellicp041626.html But now only phone works: he is "7602****00 on the screen. 1/x  Judge: I have been informed that the defendant has been sanctioned in prison to set up a Facebook dating profile to reach out to female workers - I read that as sex workers Defense lawyer: He was reaching out to pen pals Judge: Female pen pals? Judge: In Nov 2024 an investigator for the defendant reached a victim to try to get her to recant her testimony & support the defendant's claim of innocence. She was terrified Defendant: May I speak with my attorney by phone? Judge: All others leave the courtroom  [Then out in hall]  Now back in courtroom Defense: I spoke with his uncle Vernon, he mentioned the possibility of reaching out witnesses. Our representation is limited to the appeal, not exoneration. I was aware he was thinking of it. But I didn't know he did it. I tried to dissuade  Judge: I am disappointed. Defense counsel should have made it clearer to the uncle that no witness was to be contacted. The conditions made that clear. You were agents of the defendant and officers of the coat. I won't pursue it but I am disappointed Defense: He wasn't subject to the conditions yet - he wasn't on supervised release.  Judge Cote: This should not happen. Am I clear? Defense: Yes. Judge:  I will hear if I should resentence him to less than 216 months  Assistant US Attorney: This defendant ran a prostitution business for 18 years, he beat woman and threatened them. On the contacting of the witness, how did the uncle have the victim's contact information?  AUSA: Why was he reaching out to women on Facebook? He did that before, to recruit prostitutes. Defense: He has accepted responsibility and is prepared to address the court today.  Defendant: I'm not going to speak about the past, it's the past. I'm different  Judge: Your conduct was terrifying to its victims. You propose when you get out to start a non-profit for sex workers. I will not allow that during your supervised release.... This is such a serious violation of others' human rights. You understand? Defendant: Yes Judge: I impose 216 months.   The case is USA v. Purcell, 1:18-cr-81 (Cote) *** Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron. Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station, NY NY 10013 Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.  Copyright 2006-2026 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com