A federal judge last week rejected the argument that a defendant should receive a new child sex trafficking trial because his attorney failed to ensure jurors understood “pimping” allegedly meant something different in “Black/African-American culture.”
Jalil Lemason Robinson is serving a nearly 16-year sentence after jurors convicted him on two counts related to the attempted sex trafficking of a child in 2018. In reality, the “teenager” Robinson corresponded with by phone and text message was actually an Arapahoe County sheriff’s investigator.
In an April 8 order, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer pointed out any failure of Robinson’s attorney to emphasize alleged cultural differences around the concept of “pimping” did not matter because Robinson, himself, testified his intent was to pimp the fictitious teenager.
“Mr. Robinson does not have a right to a jury composed of persons with a certain understanding of a word, such as ‘pimp,'” Brimmer wrote. “The Court finds that Mr. Robinson has not shown prejudice by any failure of his attorney to ensure that the members of the jury were aware of different uses of the term ‘pimp’ or ‘pimping’ in Black culture because Mr. Robinson repeatedly agreed with the traditional definition of what that term meant.”
In Robinson’s case, an investigator created a profile for an 18-year-old Aurora girl named “Brooke” on the social networking service Hi5. Robinson, who also had a profile on the adults-only platform, contacted Brooke. Several weeks later, Brooke responded, and Robinson offered to make her a “business partner” — meaning a prostitute — and told her they could make “hella money.”
Brooke told Robinson by text message that she was actually 17 years old and her real name was “Nikki.” Still, Robinson pushed forward, telling Nikki she would need a fake identification and pressuring her to send nude photos. When Nikki agreed to travel to Robinson in California, federal agents met him at the bus terminal and arrested him.
After jurors convicted him of attempted child sex trafficking, Robinson appealed unsuccessfully to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. The court, among other things, disagreed with Robinson’s argument that police entrapped him. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently declined to hear Robinson’s case.
Representing himself from a prison in Texas, Robinson requested a new trial or a reduced sentence. He argued his attorney provided constitutionally ineffective assistance at his trial by not specifically informing jurors “certain vernacular uses of language (in particular, the word ‘pimp’) are common in Black/African-American culture.”
“The jury pool for Defendant’s voir dire contained only two Black people. The final jury consisted of 11 jurors of Caucasian or Latino ethnicity and a single Black female,” Robinson wrote. Yet, “specific cultural knowledge was necessary in order to understand the possible range of use of the word ‘pimp.'”
The government responded that if Robinson was claiming “pimp” meant something other than being the manager for a prostitute, Robinson’s challenge was meritless because “he took the stand and repeatedlyadmitted his plans to manage Nikki as a commercial sex worker once she turned 18.”
Brimmer agreed that any “cultural nuances” were irrelevant because Robinson’s testimony showed his understanding of pimping was the same as the government’s. Brimmer also rejected Robinson’s suggestion that the racial composition of his jury violated his rights.
The case is United States v. Robinson.