Ivan Duane Williams Case

COMES NOW the Defendant, Ivan Duane Williams, through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Court pursuant to Rule 8(b) and Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution for relief from the prejudicial joinder of his trial with that of other defendants and sever the trials in this matter.

BACKGROUND

The Indictment charges Mr. Williams and his co-defendants, Dennis Ray Davis, Jr. and Chelsea Anne Canterbury, with conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of a minor or a person by force, fraud, and coercion (18 U.S.C. §§1594(c) & 1591(a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(2), and (c)), and three counts of sex trafficking of a minor (18 U.S.C. §§1591(a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(2),(c) &2). From

In statements made to law enforcement, initially, Ms. Hamilton affirmatively stated Mr. Williams was not a pimp and not involved in the sex trafficking of minors. Similarly, two of the minor girls, A.L. and J.C. also denied to law enforcement that Mr. Williams was engaging in sex trafficking of minors. However, based on information and belief, Ms. Hamilton and the minor females will testify in regard to incriminating statements made by Mr. Williams’s co-defendants, which may unjustly implicate Mr. Williams. These statements will relate to solicitation of clients on Backpage.com, instructions on meeting clients, transport of the minor females, and protocol for receiving and handling of money. Aside from the alleged statements, there is little to no evidence to substantiate the allegations that Mr. Williams conspired with the co-defendants and engaged in sex trafficking of A.L., J.C.M., and

Based upon information provided in discovery, the Government intends to introduce evidence of violence, theft, and deception committed by the co-defendants. Additionally, the Government will likely assert that the evidence of Mr. Davis’s prior acts of sex trafficking minors is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), in order to negate any assertion of lack of criminal intent or claim of accident or mistake. However, such evidence is not probative of Mr. William’s criminal intent and would be severely prejudicial to Mr. Williams in a joint trial. Zafiro at 539 (severance might be proper where evidence of a codefendant's wrongdoing could erroneously lead a jury to conclude that defendant was