Prosecution’s Closing Argument

May it please the court,

The evidence before us presents an undeniable conclusion: the defendant knowingly participated in a criminal enterprise built upon deception, coercion, and the systematic exploitation of vulnerable individuals. The rule of law is clear—human trafficking, as defined under 18 U.S.C. § 1591, is a federal offense that mandates accountability for any individual who knowingly benefits from or engages in the sale and forced servitude of another person.

The prosecution has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim—[Name]—was unlawfully removed from her home, transported across state lines, and subjected to coercion under false pretenses. The defendant’s claims of ignorance, presented as an alibi, collapse under the weight of documented transactions, corroborated witness testimony, and forensic evidence tracing financial incentives directly to his accounts.

The precedent established in United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988), affirms that involuntary servitude need not require physical restraint alone—it suffices that the victim is coerced through psychological manipulation, threats, and the withholding of basic rights. The defense has failed to refute the chain of communications, financial transfers, and coordinated actions that link the accused to this crime.

Furthermore, under People v. Jennings, 50 Cal.4th 616 (2010), an alibi must stand not on mere assertion but on verifiable, independent corroboration. The defendant’s narrative, inconsistent and lacking evidentiary support, does not rise to the standard required to overcome the government’s burden of proof.

Thus, we ask this honorable court to render justice. Let the law speak where silence has long prevailed. Let the verdict stand as a declaration that no one, regardless of influence or position, may evade responsibility for the unconscionable act of trafficking human lives.

For the victim, for justice, for the integrity of our legal system—we seek a conviction on all counts.

Would you like a defense counterargument or a deeper dive into the evidentiary process?