N. Woodmere man's sex trafficking conviction reinstated

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday reinstated the 2007 sex trafficking and forced labor conviction of a Long Island man dubbed the "S&M Svengali."

The vote against an appeal filed by Glenn Marcus of North Woodmere was 7-1. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was on the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel that ruled to overturn the original conviction of Marcus in August 2008, did not participate in consideration of the latest ruling.

Marcus, 56, had been free on $1 million bond while the case was under review and was the subject of home detention and electronic monitoring.

He had originally been sentenced to a 9-year term in September 2007 after being convicted of sex trafficking and forced labor. He was facing a sentence of between nearly 18 years and almost 22 years.

The charges stemmed from what was described by authorities as a sadomasochistic relationship between Marcus and a former sex slave known only as "Jodi." Prosecutors dubbed Marcus a "god" in the world of sexual bondage and dominance - and evidence showed Marcus was known to online contacts as "GMYourGod."

The opinion, delivered by Justice Stephen Breyer, overturned a ruling by the federal appeals court in New York that found the conviction violated the Constitution because Marcus was convicted of breaking a law that wasn't in place when some of the offenses occurred. That law was the 2000 Trafficking Victims Protection Act, a law designed, primarily, to protect immigrants.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel Alito all joined in the opinion. Justice John Paul Stevens filed the dissenting opinion.

In the opinion Monday, Breyer wrote: "The standard the Second Circuit applied in this case is inconsistent with" the two of the four criteria cited for being able to render its decision - that is, that the error made in the original case "affected the appellant's substantial rights" and that "the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings."

In its opinion, the court ruled "We do not intend to trivialize the claim that respondent here raises. Nor do we imply that the kind of error at issue here is unimportant." But, the court found, that issue was not significant enough to have affected the outcome in the case.

An attorney representing Marcus could not be immediately reached for comment.

In his dissenting opinion Stevens wrote: "The trial error at issue in this case undermined the defendant's substantial rights by allowing the jury to convict him on the basis of an incorrect belief that lawful conduct was unlawful, and it does not take an elaborate formula to see that. Because, in my view, the Court of Appeals properly exercised its discretion to remedy the error and to order a retrial, I respectfully dissent."