172142P.pdf   07/26/2018  United States  v.  Thomas Szczerba
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  17-2142
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Shepherd and Erickson, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The warrant used to search 
   defendant's motel room and car incorrectly stated it authorized the search 
   of defendant's companion's person rather than the room and the car; this 
   clerical error did not render the warrant invalid when it described with 
   particularity the motel room and vehicle to be searched; a reasonable 
   officer would have read the warrant to authorize the search of the 
   particularly described property and not the woman's person; however, while 
   the warrant lacked particularity with respect to the items to be seized, 
   the warrant was not so obviously deficient that any reasonable officer 
   would have known it was constitutionally fatal; the supporting affidavit, 
   which the searching officer possessed, and which had been signed by the 
   issuing judge, did describe the items to be seized; further, exclusion in 
   this case would not result in appreciable deterrence of police misconduct, 
   as the officer seeking the warrant did not act with the type of 
   deliberate, reckless or grossly negligent disregard for the Fourth 
   Amendment the exclusionary rule seeks to deter; summary of government 
   expert's testimony was sufficient to comply with the disclosure 
   requirements of Criminal Rule 16(a)(1)(G); the testimony did not violate 
   Evidence Rule 702 as the expert possessed adequate credentials and 
   sufficient data to testify on sex-trafficking practices; fact that the 
   expert's testimony was based, in part, on interviews of pimps and 
   prostitutes did not render it inadmissible on Sixth Amendment right to 
   confront witness grounds; court had not declared a mistrial before it was 
   informed a discharged juror was available to replace a juror who could not 
   continue and the court's comments before replacing the juror were not a 
   basis for a mistrial; Brady claim rejected; the court did not err in 
   following Guideline Sec. 2G1.1(c)'s direction to apply a cross-reference 
   to Guideline Sec. 2A2.1 where the offense involved conduct in violation of 
   18 U.S.C. Sec. 2242; the court adequately explained the basis for 
   defendant's sentence and its reasons for denying defendant's request for a 
   downward variance; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's 
   convictions for conspiracy and crimes related to prostitution.