9th Circuit upholds Troy Cannon's sex trafficking conviction, rejecting challenges to evidence rulings, jury instructions…
United States v. Cannon
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit upholds Troy Cannon's sex trafficking conviction, rejecting challenges to evidence rulings, jury instructions, and sufficiency of the evidence.
Why it matters
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed Troy Shelvin Cannon's conviction for sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion. The court rejected all four of Cannon's challenges, finding no reversible error in the trial court's decisions about admitting prior-act evidence, excluding a hearsay statement, responding to jury questions, or in the sufficiency of the government's evidence. Even where the court acknowledged the possibility of error in admitting prior-act evidence, it concluded any such error was harmless given the jury's limiting instruction and the minor role that evidence played in the prosecution's case.
Who it affects
- This ruling directly affects Troy Cannon
- Whose conviction
- Sentence stand. More broadly
- Hearsay exceptions
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 13, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 13, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 13, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Troy Cannon was convicted in the Southern District of California of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion under federal law. He appealed on four grounds, arguing that the trial court made errors that undermined his conviction. The Ninth Circuit reviewed each claim and affirmed the conviction in full. First, Cannon argued the trial court wrongly admitted evidence of his other past acts under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion, but added that even if admission was an error, it was harmless. The jury received a limiting instruction telling them how to use the evidence, the government did not mention it in closing arguments, and it was a small part of the overall case. Cannon's attempt to use a prior Ninth Circuit case called Curtin to argue the trial judge should have personally reviewed an audio recording before ruling on its admissibility was rejected, because the government had already given the judge a detailed description of the recording's contents. Second, Cannon challenged the exclusion of a hearsay statement from a person identified as J.B. A hearsay exception allowing statements from unavailable witnesses requires the party seeking to use the statement to show the witness truly could not be obtained. The court found Cannon had not shown he tried to subpoena J.B. or that she would have refused to testify. His speculation that she would have invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was not enough. The court also rejected his argument that excluding the statement violated his constitutional right to present a defense. Third, Cannon challenged how the trial judge answered questions from the jury during deliberations. The appeals court found the judge's response accurately reflected the plain language of the federal sex trafficking statute and the court's own precedent, and that the jury was not left with a mistaken understanding of the law. Fourth, Cannon argued the government did not present enough evidence to support his conviction. The standard requires asking whether, viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational jury could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the evidence sufficient and rejected Cannon's attempt to compare his case unfavorably to other cases, noting those cases involved different facts and did not set a minimum threshold for what evidence is required. The court also declined to second-guess the jury's reasonable inferences about the relationship between Cannon and J.B. The opinion was issued as a non-precedential memorandum and there was no dissent noted.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 13 2026 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-5917 D.C. No. 3:24-cr-00135-BAS-1 Plaintiff - Appellee, Southern District of California, San Diego v. MEMORANDUM* TROY SHELVIN CANNON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cynthia Bashant, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 9, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: RAWLINSON and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District Judge. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. Defendant-Appellant Troy Shelvin Cannon (“Cannon”) appeals his conviction of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting prior evidence of Cannon’s other acts under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) or 403. But even if it did, any resulting error was harmless. The district court instructed the jury of the evidence’s limited use; the government did not refer to the evidence in its closing argument; and the evidence was an insignificant part of the government’s case. See, e.g., United States v. Holler, 411 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2005) (concluding that error in admitting other act evidence was harmless based on limiting instruction and abundance of evidence against defendant), overruled in part on other grounds by United States v. Larson, 495 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc); United States v. Arambula-Ruiz, 987 F.2d 599, 605 (9th Cir. 1993) (concluding that error in admitting other act evidence was harmless because judge gave limiting instruction and government made no reference to the evidence in closing arguments). Cannon’s reliance on United States v. Curtin is unavailing. United States v. Curtin, 489 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). Because the government provided the district court a detailed description of the contents of the audio recording before the district court ruled on its admissibility, “the district court’s review allowed it to -2- appreciate fully and to weigh accurately the challenged evidence’s probative value and its potential for unfair prejudice.” United States v. Major, 676 F.3d 803, 809 (9th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing Curtin where defendant did “not argue that the district court failed to understand the full scope of the challenged evidence”). And for the reasons already discussed, Cannon has not shown that the district court’s failure to review the audio recording related to his other act evidence affected the outcome of the proceedings. 2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding J.B.’s hearsay statement under Rule 804(b)(3). This hearsay exception requires that the declarant be unavailable. United States v. Paguio, 114 F.3d 928, 932 (9th Cir. 1997). Cannon has not shown that he was unable to compel J.B.’s attendance or that he engaged in reasonable means to procure her attendance or testimony. Rule 804(a)(5). Moreover, Cannon’s contention that, had J.B. been subpoenaed, she would have invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, is unavailing because it is based on mere speculation. See United States v. Oropeza, 564 F.2d 316, 325 n.8 (9th Cir. 1977) (“Because [Rule 804’s exceptions] require[] a finding of unavailability, an express claim of privilege and a ruling thereon should be made.”). And Cannon “cannot transform the exclusion of this evidence into constitutional error by arguing -3- that he was deprived of his right to present a defense.” United States v. Perkins, 937 F.2d 1397, 1401 (9th Cir. 1991).1 3. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it responded to the jury’s questions. The response relied on the plain language of the statute and reflected an accurate statement of this court’s precedent. 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a); United States v. Backman, 817 F.3d 662, 666 (9th Cir. 2016). When read in context, we are satisfied that the contested language did not tend to leave an erroneous impression in the minds of the jurors. 4. The government offered sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of § 1591(a). A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence requires “a court of appeals to determine whether ‘after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). Cannon contends that the government’s evidence did not rise 1 Cannon also relies on the cumulative error doctrine. Under these circumstances, however, the doctrine is inapplicable. See United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1256 (9th Cir. 2004) (concluding that cumulative error doctrine was inapplicable where “[i]n nearly every instance in which the Appellants claimed error in the proceedings leading to their convictions, we have found that the district court did not err”). -4- to the level of sufficiency as did the evidence in United States v. Chang Da Liu, 538 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2008), and Backman, 817 F.3d 662. His reliance on these cases is misplaced. Both involved very different circumstances from those presented here, and neither case suggested that its facts were necessary to support a conviction under § 1591(a). See Chang Da Liu, 538 F.3d at 1081-82, 1084-85; Backman, 817 F.3d at 664-65, 667-68 Cannon’s remaining arguments largely take issue with the inferences the jury drew from the evidence presented about Cannon and J.B.’s relationship. But we cannot second-guess the jury’s reasonable interpretation of the facts in the absence of evidence “so supportive of innocence that no rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Nevils, 598 F.3d at 1169. AFFIRMED. -5-
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.