Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
United States of America v. Zachary Q. Baker
Date: 02-14-2025
Case Number:
Judge: William E. Smith
Court: The United States District Court for the Rhode Island (Providence County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: The United States Attorney’s Office for Providence
Defendant's Attorney: Click Here For The Best Providence, Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Providence, Rhode Island criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with
Zachary Q. Baker 39, admitted that on March 10, 2023, he responded to an online advertisement for escorts that contained images of what appeared to be two young females being offered for a "short visit†and a "little fun.†Baker engaged in a lengthy series of text messages with a person he believed was offering a 13-year-old and an 11-year-old for sex in exchange for a fee.
After several hours of text messaging, Baker traveled to a local hotel via a rideshare where he met with the person he believed was arranging for a sexual encounter with one or both of the girls. The person with whom Baker was communicating and with whom he met was, in fact, a Homeland Security Investigations agent.
The case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Paul F. Daly, Jr.
The matter was investigated by Homeland Security Investigations.
About This Case
What was the outcome of United States of America v. Zachary Q. Baker?
The outcome was:
Which court heard United States of America v. Zachary Q. Baker?
This case was heard in The United States District Court for the Rhode Island (Providence County), RI. The presiding judge was William E. Smith.
Who were the attorneys in United States of America v. Zachary Q. Baker?
Plaintiff's attorney: The United States Attorney’s Office for Providence. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Providence, Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.
When was United States of America v. Zachary Q. Baker decided?
This case was decided on February 14, 2025.