Description: New York City, New York criminal defense lawyers represented the Defendant charged with coercion or enticement of females in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422, which provides:

(a) Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
(b) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.

On January 24, 2023, a Southern District of New York jury convicted Defendant Robert Hadden of four counts of knowingly persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing four of his many (former) OB/GYN patients to travel in interstate commerce to engage in sexual activity, or attempting to do so, in violation of Title 18 United States Code Section 2422(a). It took the jury less than two hours to reach its verdict.

Many of the prosecution witnesses at trial were Hadden's victims, and their testimony was for the most part uncontested by the Defense. The prosecution witnesses told the alarming story of Defendant Hadden's lewd and cruel crime spree of sexual assault against trusting and unwitting patient victims. Hadden's sexual assaults took place over many years in the Columbia University Irving Medical Center gynecology examining rooms in Manhattan during normal business hours.

The four indictment victims testified at trial, as follows:

• [During a pelvic exam, Hadden] licked me on the inside of my vagina . . . my body froze and like jumped a little bit.... He continued with the exam, and then . . . while he had fingers inside me, he was rubbing my clitoris for several minutes .... It felt like he was trying to arouse me sexually. (Trial Tr., dated Jan. 11, 2023, at 740:5-7, 741:25, 742:13-18.)

• [During a pelvic exam,] I felt [Hadden] penetrate my vagina with his fingers in a motion of in and out. . . . [I]t was painful... It seemed like [this continued for] a lifetime. A long time. ... it felt like he was trying to masturbate me .... [It felt] sexual. ... I tensed up, and I remembered jerking back because it hurt. ... I felt something wet on my clit[oris] . ... It felt like a tongue .... [It moved] like a flicker .... [While Hadden] was [u]nder the sheet [that was draped over my legs, Hadden] asked if my husband ate me out.... He said that my husband should eat me out.... Because it's good for the baby. ... [Then, during the breast exam, Hadden] positioned himself between my legs .... I felt his erected penis against my leg. ... He massaged my breasts and pulled on my nipples. ... I was in shock. ... I felt ashamed. (Trial Tr., dated Jan. 10, 2023, at 382:11-12, 383:7-22, 384:4-386:10, 387:9-16,388:10,15.)

• [Hadden] manipulated ... pinched ... squeezed [and] pulled on my nipples.... [When he touched my breasts, he] would use a circular motion, and it was just a very prolonged, ungloved massage.... [Hadden's breast exams were] a minute [or] two [longer than exams by other OB/GYNs.] (Id. at 525:1, 526:2-25.)

• [During a pelvic exam, Hadden] started to manipulate his fingers around my vaginal area from around my clitoris to the end of my vagina and put his fingers inside me. ... He was touching me .... It wasn't like the same . . . procedure that I had experienced for many years going to gynecologists and having children. It was nothing like that. It was much more intended ... in a sexual nature .... It was a[] movement of. . . manipulation, of touching the skin and the folds around my . . . vagina and ... he also . . . took fingers and he put them inside me and ... I didn't see him put gloves on, I didn't hear him put gloves on, I didn't hear him take gloves off. It was actually bare-handed.... He touched the inside of my vagina .... It was ... an in-and-out, thrusting movement .... [Then, during a second pelvic exam that Hadden conducted during that same appointment, Hadden] was licking me, licking ... the outside of the skin and the folds around my vagina from my clitoris on down to my vagina, like trying - inserting his tongue, and I just felt. . . lots of saliva.... It was horrifying. (Trial Tr., dated Jan. 9, 2023, at 74:11-22, 75:3-15, 82:4-7.)

Immediately following the January 24, 2023 verdict, the Government moved to have Hadden remanded. The Court demurred, asked for briefing, and scheduled a bail/remand hearing for February 1. (See Trial Tr., dated Jan. 24, 2023 (“1/24/23 Tr.”), at 1213:2-3.) The Court also advised the parties that it would rule on the issue of remand or continued bail on February 1, 2023.

At the conclusion of the February 1, 2023 hearing, the Court remanded Hadden after ruling from the bench that the Defense had failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Hadden was not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released. (Hr'g Tr., dated Feb. 1, 2023 (“2/1/23 Tr.”), at 63:4-22.) The Court also advised the parties that it intended to issue a written decision.

Hadden faces up to 80 years of incarceration at sentencing which is scheduled for April 25, 2023.

One of Hadden's victims who spoke in court following the verdict stated the following:

[E]verything has just changed. The ante has just been upped significantly with what [Hadden] is facing as a sentence, and so he has far more reason and motivation to do any number of things. . . . [H]e should be taken into custody right now and given zero opportunity to do any kind of harm to himself, to leave the country, to do whatever it is that he could possibly do.

(1/24/23 Tr. at 1194:2-9 (emphasis added).)[1]

The observation that everything has just changed is consistent with the law governing bail/remand. See Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 3143 (“Act”). Under the Act, upon a defendant's conviction, remand becomes presumptively mandatory. Specifically, under the statute, the Court “shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense and who is awaiting imposition ... of sentence . . . be detained, unless the judicial officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released.” Id. § 3143(a)(1) (emphasis added). The burden of proof rests with the defendant. See United States v. Abuhamra, 389 F.3d 309, 319 (2d Cir. 2004). There is “no general expectation of post-verdict liberty.” Id.[2]...

Outcome: Imprisonment for a total term of 20 Years on each count to run concurrently with one another. Lifetime Supervised Release

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: