X hits on this document





6 / 23

In May 2007, defendant and D. moved together to a house in Temecula, which D. and M.O.—another girl who worked for defendant—rented for $2,300 per month with money orders defendant gave them.  Defendant gave D. money for groceries and beauty supplies, but never any money for herself.

D. was arrested with defendant on August 27, 2007, and charged with four identical felonies.  By the time of defendant’s trial, however, her charges had been reduced to misdemeanors in exchange for a guilty plea.  During testimony, D. identified eight different photographs of P., taken by defendant and posted by him on the Internet.  D. said she had never worked as a prostitute before meeting defendant and did not work as a prostitute after his arrest.  She never recruited other girls to work for defendant.


H. and D. had been friends since they were in seventh grade.  H. met defendant when she was visiting D.’s apartment, where she observed him “posting girls” on craigslist.  Defendant told H. she was beautiful, that she was what guys wanted, and that “a guy could make a lot of money off a girl like [her].”  He suggested a number of “really dumb reasons” why she should be a prostitute:  D. was doing it; if H. did it, he would buy her a car; since she was having sex anyway, she might as well get paid for it.  However, he would be keeping all the money she made because if he gave it to her, she would “spend it too fast.”  And if they got her a car, it would be in his name.  H. did not go to work for defendant.  Because she was worried about her friend, she told D.’s mother about what D. was doing.

Document info
Document views36
Page views36
Page last viewedWed Oct 26 09:43:34 UTC 2016