Estimated read time: 5-6 minutes
- A judge will decide if a labor trafficking case against Rubicon Contracting LLC proceeds to trial.
- Judge Rita Cornish expressed frustration with the state's evidence.
- A decision is expected this week to determine whether seven administrators will be bound over for trial.
BOUNTIFUL — A judge may rule this week whether there is enough evidence to order seven administrators of a Davis County general contracting company to stand trial on charges of labor trafficking.
But if 2nd District Judge Rita Cornish's tense exchange with prosecutors during closing arguments of the preliminary hearing is any indication, the state may not have met its burden of proof.
"I am thoroughly frustrated and I am trying really hard to dig deep and find where the state has met its burden," Cornish sternly told assistant attorney general Kaytlin Beckett after a recent preliminary hearing.
The founder and six executive members of Rubicon Contracting LLC are charged with 14 counts each of aggravated human trafficking, a first-degree felony. The group is accused of recruiting about 150 people from Mexico to work for the company using H-2B visas. But once in Utah, charging documents allege the victims were paid very little, forced to live in deplorable housing provided by Rubicon while also being forced to pay rent, all under the threat of deportation.
A preliminary hearing was held in May. The hearing for the complicated case went longer than anticipated, so closing arguments were scheduled on Dec. 27.
In a recording of the Dec. 27 hearing, the judge said her interpretation of human labor trafficking is when there is forced fraud or coercion to a worker. In this case, however, the workers seemed to know what they were getting into, Cornish said. The judge also pressed the state on whether the case was "vastly overcharged" and asked prosecutors multiple times to come up with specific evidence that all seven individuals committed 14 acts of human trafficking each. She posed the question of why this wasn't an issue for the Department of Labor to address with the company as a whole rather than charge each person individually.
Each defendant is represented by his or her attorneys, including Nathan Crane, who represents Rubicon founder and owner Rudy Lars Larsen. He argued that the state's evidence regarding his client is "significantly lacking" and took issue with the state's brief submitted as part of their closing arguments.
"What the state did in their brief was frankly alarming and concerning," he said, adding that the brief included evidence and arguments that the court had already ruled were not admissible. "I don't know how else to say it, but it's just made up, it's not supported by the evidence. They're saying generalized things not supported by the recorded evidence."
Attorney Keith Woodwell, who is representing Jena Marie Larsen, concurred, saying the state does not get to "speculate or make up facts."
"There are 14 counts of aggravated trafficking against (my client) with no evidence to support it. It's time for this to end," he said.
Beckett argued for the state that the seven people charged engaged together in a coercive scheme that constitutes the trafficking charges. She also said she believes the court is making determinations that are incorrect because evidence that was determined to be inadmissible is being left out.
Cornish frequently interrupted Beckett with questions and pressed her on evidentiary issues. The tense back-and-forth came to a head near the end of the hearing when Beckett told the judge, "I'm frustrated that you didn't interrupt defense counsel but you've interrupted me multiple times when I'm trying to outline a very large scheme."
"The state carries the burden, Ms. Beckett. The state carries the burden, Ms. Beckett," Cornish replied.
After Beckett expressed her frustration with the judge, Cornish expressed her frustration with the prosecution.
"Let me be clear … I find this is an incredibly challenging case. I think some of the things Mr. Crane has said about the mischaracterization of the evidence in the state's brief is pretty spot on. I think that we have gone well beyond reasonable inferences in some places to sheer speculation in arguing it. I do find it disingenuous (for) the state to cite a lot of evidence that I have excluded in their brief without noting it for the court so that when I'm reading the state's brief, I have to stop and think, 'Was that something that I excluded as inadmissible evidence or not?'
"I am very troubled by the approach the state has taken here," the judge continued. "So yes, I've got a lot of questions for the state about the evidence, about what their theory of the case is. I've got 14 counts and every time I press the state, I get a different answer as to what the theory of the count is. It is a moving target that is frustrating for me. But I can only imagine how frustrating it is for the defense when they're the ones whose lives are in jeopardy here."
Cornish said while she might be able to see a handful of incidents in the brief where the evidence matches the state's arguments, most of the allegations do not.
"You're deflecting to say that I'm not going to bother to answer your questions because you interrupted me is incredibly frustrating for me as well. So maybe you can listen to the questions and enlighten my concerns," she told Beckett.
After saying that she gets a different answer every time she asks the state a question, Beckett opted to not make any more counter arguments.
"If that's the court's opinion then I will just submit and I won't make further arguments and the court can analyze the information that's in the state's brief," she said.
Cornish said she hoped to issue her ruling in writing within two weeks from the Dec. 27 hearing, meaning it could come this week.
Meanwhile, a Franks hearing is scheduled to be held in February. A Franks hearing, named after a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on a case out of Delaware, is held to determine whether false statements or significant omissions were used by an investigator in an affidavit to get a judge to sign a search warrant. If that is determined to be the case, then all the evidence collected as part of that search warrant would not be admitted in court.
A Franks hearing is scheduled for five of the 10 search warrants served in the case. But if Cornish declines to bind the case over for trial, there would be no need for the hearing.
