By Özge Terzioğlu
MERCED – Two issues emerged in a human trafficking preliminary hearing here Tuesday in Merced County Superior Court—one of substance and the other of legal theory.
The defense for co-defendant Dominique Macklevane argued that Merced County doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear the case, and second, the defendants did not “cause, induce, or persuade” the minor victim to prostitute because “it appears [the victim] knew she was going [to Los Angeles] to do prostitution.”
While the judge ruled there was sufficient evidence for the case to go to trial, the judge continued the case to Friday morning to determine if Merced is the right place for that trial.
The victim, who is not identified because she is a minor, testified that she had to go on dates with “Johns,” and she had to stay out “all night, every day.” She defined dates as engaging in various 
sexual acts, and she defined Johns as the people who paid her to do such sexual acts with them.
She further explained that if she didn’t go on the dates, she felt like co-defendant Macklevane would hit or punish her.
The victim stayed with the co-defendants (the other co-defendant is a minor) for eight days in Los Angeles, from June to July of this year. They bought her a train ticket so she could join them from Fresno. The victim acknowledged that she knew she would be prostituting herself when she arrived in Los Angeles. She testified that she had to give all the money she earned from these “dates” to both of the co-defendants.
The co-defendants, the victim, and another unnamed person were driving to Oakland to pick up another girl who, according to Macklevane, was his “new b***h.” The victim texted 911 because she didn’t want to go to Oakland to do more prostitution and she “was just tired” of being up all day and night to prostitute.
The second witness, Officer Jesse Talbot, was on the scene of the traffic stop in Merced County and, from his encounter with the victim at the stop, he described her as someone who “just wanted to go home.”
Adam Rodriguez, defense attorney for the co-defendant who is a minor, questioned the victim, who said that Macklevane made choices for both the minor co-defendant and the victim. The victim also said Macklevane had yelled at the minor co-defendant before and forced her to call him “Daddy.”
The victim also identified the minor co-defendant as a “bottom b***h,” or, in her words, “someone who runs the other girls with the pimp.” She identified the pimp as Macklevane.
Rodriguez used this information to argue that his client, the minor co-defendant, was also a victim in this case because she also went on dates and Macklevane made choices for her. He further stated that his client does not have influence or power in her relationship with Macklevane and she did not induce or persuade the victim.
The district attorney’s office, represented by Katie Gates, countered that the co-defendant still helped buy a ticket for the victim to come to Los Angeles to prostitute and took the victim’s money from her dates.
The judge agreed with Gates and said there is sufficient evidence for a preliminary hearing.
In Macklevane’s defense attorney’s final argument, she expressed a need for the court to reevaluate the territorial jurisdiction of the case, more so than the facts of the case. She said the case lacks jurisdiction in Merced County because human trafficking allegations can be prosecuted in the county where it happened.
She stated that since the co-defendants were driving through Merced County, no human trafficking crime was committed there.
She reiterated that the crime was likely committed in Los Angeles County, where the victim testified to engaging in prostitution. She requested the case be heard in LA County.
The defense attorney’s second argument is that the evidence does not support the human trafficking charge because a person would have to “cause, induce, and persuade a minor.” She argued that the minor knew she was going to LA for the purpose of prostitution, chose to engage in those sexual actions, chose to give her money to the co-defendants, and she was allowed to leave when she decided she was uncomfortable.
The defense attorney argued that a crime was still committed, but her client should be charged with prostitution and not human trafficking.
The judge agreed that the crime happened in Los Angeles County, but she qualified that they were traveling to Oakland with the intent to prostitute there as well.
Gates agreed with the judge and reiterated that when the car was stopped on the freeway, they were in a “continuing source of action” because they were going to Oakland to commit the same crime.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
