Elizabeth Geddes

So in prosecuting a sex trafficking charge, you need to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed all of the elements of the sex trafficking offense. And that's a high burden for prosecutors to meet at trial here because to show that someone has engaged in sex trafficking.

So in prosecuting a sex trafficking charge, you need to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed all of the elements of the sex trafficking offense. And that's a high burden for prosecutors to meet at trial here because to show that someone has engaged in sex trafficking.

So in prosecuting a sex trafficking charge, you need to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed all of the elements of the sex trafficking offense. And that's a high burden for prosecutors to meet at trial here because to show that someone has engaged in sex trafficking.

Prosecutors will need to show that the defendant enticed or recruited or otherwise caused an individual to perform some type of commercial sex act. And commercial sex itself is very broadly defined as any type of sexual conduct in exchange for which someone receives a benefit. And benefit itself is also very broadly defined under the statute.

Prosecutors will need to show that the defendant enticed or recruited or otherwise caused an individual to perform some type of commercial sex act. And commercial sex itself is very broadly defined as any type of sexual conduct in exchange for which someone receives a benefit. And benefit itself is also very broadly defined under the statute.

Prosecutors will need to show that the defendant enticed or recruited or otherwise caused an individual to perform some type of commercial sex act. And commercial sex itself is very broadly defined as any type of sexual conduct in exchange for which someone receives a benefit. And benefit itself is also very broadly defined under the statute.

That's correct. Sometimes, sort of most traditionally, benefit is actual cash in hand to the person who is performing the sex act. But it doesn't have to be to the person performing the sex act. It can be somebody who arranged for the service itself could also be paid and that's sufficient. And the benefit can be financial or it can be more of an intangible benefit.

That's correct. Sometimes, sort of most traditionally, benefit is actual cash in hand to the person who is performing the sex act. But it doesn't have to be to the person performing the sex act. It can be somebody who arranged for the service itself could also be paid and that's sufficient. And the benefit can be financial or it can be more of an intangible benefit.

That's correct. Sometimes, sort of most traditionally, benefit is actual cash in hand to the person who is performing the sex act. But it doesn't have to be to the person performing the sex act. It can be somebody who arranged for the service itself could also be paid and that's sufficient. And the benefit can be financial or it can be more of an intangible benefit.

That's right. And again, the statute was written so that it would be very broadly applied to different types of conduct. And fraud, I think it's maybe more understandable to juries. It simply means where there's some type of deceit or lies that were used in order to cause someone to engage in the Commercial Sex Act.

That's right. And again, the statute was written so that it would be very broadly applied to different types of conduct. And fraud, I think it's maybe more understandable to juries. It simply means where there's some type of deceit or lies that were used in order to cause someone to engage in the Commercial Sex Act.

That's right. And again, the statute was written so that it would be very broadly applied to different types of conduct. And fraud, I think it's maybe more understandable to juries. It simply means where there's some type of deceit or lies that were used in order to cause someone to engage in the Commercial Sex Act.

Coercion is maybe even potentially more difficult for a jury to understand because it's defined as when someone uses some type of pattern, plan, or scheme to cause someone to believe that if they don't perform a particular act, that they will suffer serious harm.

Coercion is maybe even potentially more difficult for a jury to understand because it's defined as when someone uses some type of pattern, plan, or scheme to cause someone to believe that if they don't perform a particular act, that they will suffer serious harm.

Coercion is maybe even potentially more difficult for a jury to understand because it's defined as when someone uses some type of pattern, plan, or scheme to cause someone to believe that if they don't perform a particular act, that they will suffer serious harm.

That's right. In most of these cases, the primary evidence are the witnesses who take the stand and tell the jury about exactly what happened to them. And they're subject in many instances to really significant cross-examination where their credibility is going to be attacked by the defense and maybe, you know, viewed suspiciously by the jury. But at the end of the day, in most of these cases...

That's right. In most of these cases, the primary evidence are the witnesses who take the stand and tell the jury about exactly what happened to them. And they're subject in many instances to really significant cross-examination where their credibility is going to be attacked by the defense and maybe, you know, viewed suspiciously by the jury. But at the end of the day, in most of these cases...

That's right. In most of these cases, the primary evidence are the witnesses who take the stand and tell the jury about exactly what happened to them. And they're subject in many instances to really significant cross-examination where their credibility is going to be attacked by the defense and maybe, you know, viewed suspiciously by the jury. But at the end of the day, in most of these cases...

It comes down to whether or not the jury believes. I was going to say women, but it can be men as well. But for the jury to believe the individual who says that she has been or he has been trafficked in some way.

It comes down to whether or not the jury believes. I was going to say women, but it can be men as well. But for the jury to believe the individual who says that she has been or he has been trafficked in some way.