On February 25, Allen Arthur Frazier was found guilty of charges related to his attempts to exchange money, drugs, and other goods for sex acts from two minor victims. Following a two-day trial in Lycoming County, the jury found Frazier, 40, of Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, guilty of criminal attempt to commit trafficking in individuals, conspiracy to commit trafficking in individuals, possession of a controlled substance, two counts of unlawful contact with a minor, and corruption of minors. The two minor victims were aged twelve and sixteen-years old.
The Williamsport City Police Department and Lycoming County District Attorney’s Office initiated charges against Frazier in August 2023 after the 12-year-old victim sent her sister a message informing her she was in a dangerous situation, prompting her sister to contact the police.
During the proceedings, the victims testified separately and each explained an incident occurring at an apartment belonging Jennifer Gibbs and Victor Booth, friends of Frazier and parents to one of the victims. Reports explain that Frazier offered Gibbs and Booth crack cocaine in exchange for time alone with their daughter and her best friend. Gibbs testified that Frazier asked if he could “have some fun with them,” meaning the two children. Booth responded saying his daughter was off limits, but offered up her friend.
On the stand, the two minor victims testified that Frazier tried entering a bedroom through a locked door, subsequently knocking when he couldn’t get in, and asked the girls to perform a sex act on him in exchange for twenty dollars. Reports state the victims were so mortified from the encounter that they ran out of the house. According to their testimony, the victims then returned to the apartment, where Frazier asked the daughter’s friend to enter the bathroom with him so he could apologize. Once she declined this request, Gibbs and Booth approached both girls asking if their daughter’s friend would spend time with Frazier in exchange for money. According to reports, upon hearing the request the friend immediately fled home and informed her mother, who called Gibbs. The mother testified that before Booth took the phone from Gibbs and relayed contradictory accounts of the events, Gibbs denied the interactions with the victims ever occurred. She also explained that Booth initially claimed the deal was a joke, before claiming they had “heard things” about their daughter’s friend, and “wanted to see if she would really do it.”
News reports state the case was built around text conversations between Frazier and Gibbs which the Lycoming County Special Prosecutor argued showed Frazier’s intent to exchange money for sex. Further messages between the two also illustrated Frazier asking and insisting that Gibbs speak to the victims on his behalf, promising he would reward Gibbs and Booth with crack cocaine. Frazier, Gibbs, and Booth each testified they would routinely smoke crack-cocaine in Gibbs and Booth’s apartment together.
Gibbs pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking individuals and was sentenced to two to five years in county prison, while Booth is serving a two-to-four-year sentence in state prison for charges of trafficking individuals after pleading no contest.
In deciding the case, the Judge found that only the 16-year-old friend was Frazier’s target and therefore dismissed the counts related to the 12-year-old.
While the CSE Institute is pleased to see Lycoming County prosecute Frazier appropriately under 3011 for his crimes against the 16-year-old, we are disappointed in the dismissal of the charges related to the 12-year-old.
Under Pennsylvania law, a person is guilty of sex trafficking if they recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, obtain, advertise, maintain, patronize, or solicit a person for a commercial sex act. A commercial sex act is defined as “a sex act for which anything of value is given to or received by a person.” According to news reports and victim testimony, before specifically asking the 16-year-old for sexual favors in exchange for money, Frazier asked both girls to perform a sex act on him for twenty dollars. He therefore attempted to obtain a sex act from both victims in exchange for money, and therefore he was appropriately charged with two counts of criminal attempt to traffic individuals.
Further, while the CSE Institute is pleased to see the guilty verdict, it also condemns the Williamsport Sun-Gazette for its harmful framing of the victim’s testimony and the gratuitously detailed account of that testimony.
The way the media reports on the system of human trafficking matters. Human trafficking is a complex crime which requires journalists to be thoughtful, informed, and compassionate in providing context and a voice to victims. In relaying the facts of this case, it was unnecessary to state the victim was “openly sobbing while testifying.” Explaining how a victim’s trauma illustrated itself on the stand is not a relevant inquiry into whether the perpetrator is guilty of human trafficking and therefore does not need to be advertised in an article reporting on the trial. Journalists should do no harm when they report on a trial, meaning they should show compassion in their reporting and suggest solutions to the emotional trauma trafficked individuals endure, not amplify that trauma through unnecessary details.
Finally, the CSE Institute applauds the prosecutor in this case for her commitment to showing that trafficking happens “everywhere in the world,” suggesting that small cities like Williamsport are not immune. She successfully disproved the extreme misconception that trafficking happens only at the international level, illustrating most victims personally know their traffickers and live in their neighborhoods. Prosecutors and advocates must follow in her footsteps to educate communities and effectively combat the harmful misconceptions about human trafficking so children are no longer subjected to this abuse from those they trust.
Frazier has a sentencing hearing scheduled for June 3.
The CSE Institute will continue to provide updates as they become available.
All views expressed herein are personal to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law or of Villanova University.