No. 21-1515

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

STEVEN TUCKER, a/k/a CHILL,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Joseph N. Laplante, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Kayatta, Lipez, and Thompson, Circuit Judges.

Megan A. Siddall, with whom Christina N. Lindberg and Miner Siddall LLP were on brief, for appellant.

Seth R. Aframe, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Jane E. Young, United States Attorney, was on brief, for appellee.

February 23, 2023 THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. The defendant, Steven Tucker, appeals his convictions for sex trafficking of a minor (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591), use of an interstate facility to promote unlawful activity (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952), and maintaining a drug-involved premises (in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856). In this direct appeal, Tucker raises two issues: (1) whether he was entitled to a mistrial after the trial judge dismissed two jurors just before the jury started deliberating, and (2) whether he is entitled to a new trial when, several weeks after the jury returned the guilty verdicts, the government disclosed that it had inadvertently withheld impeachment evidence about one of its witnesses. For the reasons we explain below, we affirm.

Background

Before delving into the events on which the two appellate issues are based, we hit the highlights of the factual underpinnings of Tucker's counts of conviction to provide a wide- lens view of the conduct for which the jury found Tucker criminally culpable. See United States v. Laureano-Salgado, 933 F.3d 20, 24 (1st Cir. 2019) (explaining similar set up). We present "the pertinent facts in the light most agreeable to the verdict, deferring some details to our analysis of the issues raised on appeal." United States v. Blanchard, 867 F.3d 1, 3 n.1 (1st Cir.

- 2 - 2017) (quoting United States v. Savarese, 686 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2012)).

The testimony at Tucker's four-day jury trial revealed that, between October 2013 and July 2014, Tucker ran a robust heroin trade and prostitution venture out of his address of record on Walnut Street in Manchester, New Hampshire. Serving as both a pimp and a drug dealer during this time, Tucker fed the heroin addictions of several women, incentivizing their sex work by withholding or providing heroin (as well as withholding or providing food) depending on their earnings from day-to-day. The testifying witnesses included a few of these women, all of whom were in recovery and struggling to stay sober.1

The women arranged the sex work through Backpage.com. Now defunct, the Backpage website had allowed any user to post advertisements for products or services, including under categories for "adult entertainment" or "escorts," with the postings sortable by geographic area.2 Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC, 817 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 2016); see also United

1 At the time of their testimony, the women had been sober for somewhere between several months to a couple of years. Most also testified that they had experience with cycles of sobriety and relapse.

2 Backpage.com ceased to exist in 2018 after its chief executive agreed to shut it down as part of a plea deal he negotiated to resolve t