Ads by Google Ads by Google

“Bar and restaurant were front for prostitution business,” says the court

“No miscarriage of justice is indicated here and the court may not therefore disturb the jury’s verdict,” was the decision by the court when they denied Fa’asaina Park’s motion seeking a judgment of acquittal and asking the court for an order to set aside the jury’s verdict of promoting prostitution in the second degree.

 

The decision and order issued this week was signed by Chief Justice Michael Kruse and Chief and Associate Judge Logoai Siaki.

 

Park, owner of the Karaoke nightclub, was charged in connection with a prostitution case, along with her employee, Lusia Tusi aka Shiela. Both were found guilty in a jury trial of promoting prostitution, second degree, a class C felony punishable with up to seven years in jail, a fine up to $5,000, or both. They were also convicted on two counts of third degree assault, which are both class A misdemeanors carrying a jail term of up to one year and a fine of up to $1,000 for each count.

 

This motion seeking a judgement of acquittal and setting aside the jury’s verdict was filed on behalf of Park alone — Tusi was not included.

 

According to the court order, the defendant urged the court to hold that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish various elements of promoting prostitution in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

The court in its discussions concluded that in viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to ASG, the court found that ample evidence supported the jury’s factual findings, and denied the motion.

 

At the heart of the court’s decision is that the jury could infer and draw a reasonable inference beyond a reasonable doubt from evidence presented by ASG during the court case, which led to the guilty verdict.

 

DISCUSSIONS

 

The defendant argued that ASG failed to present evidence to establish prostitution activity by two or more prostitutes because the sexual conduct in defendant’s place of business, the Karaoke bar, was not in return for something of value, that the kissing and indecent exposure that occurred at the bar failed to meet the definition of sexual contact and the evidence failed to show sexual conduct by two or more prostitutes in the bar.

 

The court disagreed, saying, “The Jury could have drawn a reasonable inference from evidence, including instructions to female servers in the Karaoke bar, that sexual conduct was in return for something of value such as increased sales at the bar.”

 

The order further states that in addition, “the evidence presented included testimony about not only kissing and indecent exposure at the karaoke bar but also incidents involving sexual contact, the touching of female servants’ breasts.

 

“Moreover, the testimony regarding sexual conduct in the bar involved more than one female server. To the extent that defendant attempts to reduce the number of prostitutes by characterizing the men involved in these incidents as boyfriends, rather than clients, such a determination is properly made by the jury instead of the court.”

 

In reply to the defendant’s argument that ASG failed to present evidence to establish that defendant managed, supervised, controlled or owned, either along or in association with others, a house of prostitution business or enterprise, the court states that at the trial the jury heard testimony that the female servers were not only instructed to deliver food and drink to customers but also to engage in sexual contact with them.

 

It says from this and other evidence, “the jury could reasonably infer and conclude that defendant managed, supervised, controlled or owned, either alone or in association with others, a house of prostitution or a prostitution business or enterprise, beyond a reasonable doubt.”

 

Defendant in addition argues she instead operated a bar and restaurant business, says the court, while “ASG argues that the bar and restaurant activity were a front for the prostitution business.”

 

The court pointed out that at the trial the jury heard testimony that the female servers were not only instructed to deliver food and drink to customers but also to engage in sexual contact with them.

 

The defendant also argued that several facts demonstrate that she had no knowledge of her employee’s prostitution activities.

 

The court says, “at trial ASG presented circumstantial evidence of defendant’s including the aforementioned instructions to servers, underpaying her staff, controlling the people with whom her employees left the bar, and providing employees leaving the bar with condoms.”

 

The court says that from this and other evidence, the jury could reasonably infer that defendant knowingly promoted prostitution.

 

The court order states, further that “defendant argues that no evidence established that she caused or aided anyone to engage in prostitution and that her employees voluntarily engaged in prostitution on their own.

 

“The defendant is asking the court to participate in a weighing exercise that is exclusively a function of the jury.

 

“Determining whether the defendant’s employees voluntarily engaged in prostitution on their own, or whether defendant promoted that prostitution, involves determining the credibility of witnesses, resolving evidentiary conflicts and drawing reusable interference from proven facts which are all activities for the jury and not the court,” the court pointed out.