United States v. Jordie Callahan
98 Fed. R. Serv. 568, 2015 FED App. 0221P, 801 F.3d 606 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The federal forced labor statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1589, unambiguously applies to any person whose labor is obtained through prohibited coercive means, regardless of the person's nationality, the domestic setting of the crime, or the nature of the labor performed. Similarly, the statute prohibiting acquisition of a controlled substance by deception, 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(3), applies to 'any person' and is not limited to healthcare professionals.
Facts:
- S.E., a young woman with a cognitive disability, and her minor daughter, B.E., moved into an apartment with Jessica Hunt and Jordie Callahan after S.E. became homeless.
- Hunt and Callahan soon began forcing S.E. to perform extensive domestic labor, including cleaning, yardwork, and caring for their dogs from morning until night.
- To compel her labor, Hunt and Callahan subjected S.E. and B.E. to constant physical and psychological abuse, including beatings, threats with weapons, and extreme humiliation.
- They confined S.E. and B.E. at night in rooms that locked from the outside, first an unfinished basement and later a bedroom, providing them with minimal food and no access to a lavatory.
- Hunt and Callahan prevented S.E. from escaping by keeping B.E. locked up while S.E. was out on errands and by threatening to use coerced videos of S.E. striking B.E. to have her child taken away.
- On at least two occasions, Hunt and Callahan intentionally inflicted serious bodily injury on S.E. and coached her to lie to hospital staff about the cause to obtain prescriptions for Vicodin, which they then confiscated.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States government prosecuted Jessica Hunt and Jordie Callahan in the U.S. District Court.
- After a twelve-day trial, a jury found both defendants guilty of conspiracy, forced labor, and acquiring a controlled substance by deception.
- The jury also returned a special verdict finding that the forced labor violation included the offense of kidnapping or attempted kidnapping.
- The district court denied the defendants' post-trial motions for acquittal and for a new trial.
- The district court sentenced Callahan to a term of 360 months imprisonment and Hunt to a term of 384 months.
- Hunt and Callahan, as Defendants-Appellants, timely appealed their convictions and sentences to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does compelling a cognitively impaired U.S. citizen to perform domestic labor and run errands through physical violence, confinement, and psychological coercion constitute 'forced labor' under 18 U.S.C. § 1589, even if the conduct occurs in a purely domestic setting?
Opinions:
Majority - Clay, Circuit Judge
Yes. Compelling a person to perform labor through such means falls squarely within the federal forced labor statute. The court's statutory analysis begins and ends with the plain text of 18 U.S.C. § 1589, which prohibits obtaining the labor of 'a person' by force or other coercive means. The term 'a person' is unambiguous and encompasses any individual, regardless of nationality or the context of the crime; legislative history is irrelevant when the text is clear. The court distinguished this case from Bond v. United States, which involved a minor local assault prosecuted under a chemical weapons treaty, and United States v. Toviave, which involved a guardian requiring household chores from children under his care. Here, the defendants' conduct—involving squalid living conditions, extreme isolation, violence, and threats of legal process—goes to the 'heart of § 1589’s concern' and its purpose of enforcing the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition on involuntary servitude. The domestic tasks S.E. was forced to perform clearly constitute 'labor or services,' and ample evidence showed that the defendants used force and threats specifically for the purpose of compelling that labor.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a broad interpretation of the federal forced labor statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1589, confirming that its application is not limited to cases of international human trafficking or sex work. By emphasizing the plain meaning of the term 'a person,' the court rejected attempts to narrow the statute's scope based on legislative history or the purely domestic nature of the crime. This precedent empowers federal prosecutors to address situations of modern-day slavery that occur within local communities, reinforcing the idea that the Thirteenth Amendment's protections against involuntary servitude apply to any form of labor compelled by severe coercion, violence, and deprivation of liberty.
