Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More

Case Citation
Legal Case Name

United States v. Mi Sun Cho Case Brief

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit2013Docket #404497
713 F.3d 716 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7666 2013 WL 1594173

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
3 min read

tl;dr: A woman arranged a prostitution job for another who traveled interstate. The court held that arranging the trip and the final intrastate leg constituted illegal ‘transportation’ under federal sex trafficking law, even though the defendant did not pay for or physically facilitate the interstate crossing.

Legal Significance: This case clarifies that the actus reus of ‘transporting’ under the Mann Act (18 U.S.C. § 2421) includes arranging interstate travel for prostitution, even without directly paying for or physically facilitating the interstate portion of the journey, so long as the defendant facilitates its continuation.

United States v. Mi Sun Cho Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Mei Hua Jin telephoned defendant Mi Sun Cho from Atlantic City, New Jersey, seeking employment as a prostitute. Cho, who had extensive contacts in the sex-trafficking industry, knew Jin was in New Jersey and agreed to find her a position in a Manhattan brothel. Cho used a confidential informant (CI) to communicate the job offer to Jin. After speaking with Cho and the CI, Jin purchased her own bus ticket and traveled from Atlantic City to New York. Upon Jin’s arrival, Cho and the CI met her. Cho then directed the CI to drive Jin on the final, intrastate leg of her journey to the Manhattan brothel. Cho was charged with, inter alia, transporting an individual in interstate commerce for the purpose of prostitution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421 and willfully causing her to be so transported under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b). A jury convicted Cho. She appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove she ‘transported’ Jin.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Do a defendant’s actions of arranging a prostitution job for an individual who then travels interstate on her own, and subsequently arranging for the final intrastate leg of her journey, satisfy the ‘transportation’ element of the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2421?

Yes. The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugi

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Do a defendant’s actions of arranging a prostitution job for an individual who then travels interstate on her own, and subsequently arranging for the final intrastate leg of her journey, satisfy the ‘transportation’ element of the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2421?

Conclusion

This case affirms a broad construction of the 'transportation' element in federal Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut

Legal Rule

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2421, a defendant 'transports' an individual in interstate Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id

Legal Analysis

The Second Circuit rejected Cho's argument that she did not 'arrange' Jin's Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore e

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Summary unavailable

No flash summary is available for this opinion.