Sex Trafficking Prosecution Fails in Case of Pimps Defended by Prostitutes John Marshall Mantel for The New York Times Vincent George Jr. and Sr. in court on Wednesday after being convicted of promoting prostitution and of money laundering, but not of the more serious charges of sex trafficking. A novel attempt to use New York State's sex trafficking law against a father and son from Pennsylvania ended with mixed results on Wednesday, as the men were convicted in Manhattan of promoting prostitution and of money laundering, but were acquitted of the more serious charges of sex trafficking. The case was seen as an interesting test of the limits of the state's sex trafficking law that took effect in 2007. The law defines trafficking based on the methods the pimps use to control the prostitutes, rather than whether the prostitutes view themselves as victims. The charges require proof that the pimps had coerced the women working for them into performing sex for money. During the trial, prosecutors for the Manhattan district attorney's office entered into evidence recorded phone conversations and text messages between the defendants, Vincent George Jr. and Sr., and women working for them in which threats were issued. They also presented an expert to testify that women working as prostitutes are often not aware that they are victims. But three of the women themselves testified for the defense that they loved the Georges and chose to work as prostitutes. "I would say that I make my own choices," one of the women, Heather Keith, 26, said in testimony during the trial. I am not a dumb person. I know what I'm doing. Livery drivers who supplied johns and some johns themselves were also charged as part of the investigation. But the women working as prostitutes for the Georges were not charged, as part of the changed approach to prostitution by law enforcement officials. "The goal of this investigation was to dismantle this criminal enterprise, and that has been achieved," said Cyrus R. Vance Jr., the Manhattan district attorney. Obviously the case was a tough case, and it was a tough case because of the complicated relationship between pimps and prostituted women. Outside of court, Howard Greenberg, the lawyer for the senior Mr. George, said prosecutors had a "monumental task on their hands" in trying to prove the men had coerced the women into prostitution. "This case never was a sex trafficking case," Mr. Greenberg said, "and they had to turn water into wine in order to turn it into one, and they failed at that task." A lawyer for the son, David B. Epstein, called the verdict "a vindication of the love between the Georges and the women." He said prosecutors "tried to downplay it, they tried to make fun of it, they tried to contradict it, but the reality is there is real love there." "It's a moral victory as well as a legal victory," Mr. Epstein added. Two of the women who testified for the Georges, along with other supporters, were in State Supreme Court in Manhattan to hear the verdict when it was announced by Justice Ruth Pickholz, who decided the case without a jury at the request of the defendants. They let out screams of approval and clapped when Justice Pickholz announced the acquittal on the sex trafficking counts, which carried a possible prison sentence of up to 25 years. Mr. George Jr. smiled broadly and pumped his fist in the air. But all went silent when Justice Pickholz announced the guilty verdicts on the other counts, which carry a possible sentence of up to 15 years. In an elevator after the verdict, one of the women who testified, Desiree Ellis, sobbed. Justice Pickholz did not explain her verdict. She scheduled sentencing for July 8.