United States v. Mohamed Toure
Not available in text (Document: 00515484144) (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The federal forced labor statute's definition of 'serious harm,' which includes non-physical harm sufficient to compel a reasonable person of the same background and circumstances to continue working, is not unconstitutionally vague.
Facts:
- In January 2000, Mohamed Toure and Denise Cros-Toure brought a young girl, D.D., from Guinea to their home in Southlake, Texas, when she was approximately nine or ten years old.
- D.D.'s six-month tourist visa expired, but she continued to live with and work for the Toures for sixteen years without any payment.
- During this time, D.D. performed extensive labor, including cooking, cleaning, childcare, landscaping, and major home renovations, often working from early morning until late at night.
- The Toures isolated D.D. by withholding her passport and visa, refusing to enroll her in school, and preventing her from learning to read or write.
- D.D. was subjected to severe medical neglect; the Toures provided no medical care and only one dental visit, which resulted in D.D. having to extract two of her own infected teeth.
- The Toures physically abused D.D. through frequent beatings with belts and electrical cords, and on one occasion, Denise Cros-Toure ripped an earring through D.D.'s earlobe.
- The Toures also inflicted psychological abuse, including verbal humiliation, shaving D.D.'s head as punishment, and banishing her from the house for days at a time, forcing her to sleep in a public park.
- In 2016, after a violent assault by Denise Cros-Toure and overhearing a conversation about being 'given' to another family, D.D. arranged for a former neighbor to help her flee the Toures' home.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas returned a five-count indictment against Mohamed Toure and Denise Cros-Toure.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial in the district court.
- At the close of the government's case, the defendants moved for judgments of acquittal based on insufficient evidence, which the court denied.
- The jury found both defendants guilty of forced labor, conspiracy to harbor an alien for financial gain, and harboring an alien.
- The district court sentenced both defendants to 84 months of imprisonment and ordered them to pay $288,620.24 in restitution.
- Mohamed Toure and Denise Cros-Toure, as appellants, appealed their convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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 the definition of 'serious harm' in the federal forced labor statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1589(c)(2), which includes 'any harm, whether physical or nonphysical,' judged by its effect on a 'reasonable person of the same background and in the same circumstances,' render the statute unconstitutionally vague?
Opinions:
Majority - Elrod, J.
No. The forced-labor statute's definition of 'serious harm' is not unconstitutionally vague. Because the defendants raised this constitutional challenge for the first time on appeal, the court applied a plain-error standard of review, which requires the error to be 'clear or obvious' under current law. The defendants failed to cite any legal authority holding that the statute is unconstitutional. To the contrary, every court that has considered the issue has upheld the statute's constitutionality. Given the absence of any supporting precedent and the existence of contrary precedent, any alleged error was not 'clear or obvious,' and the defendants' vagueness challenge fails. The court also found sufficient evidence for Mohamed Toure's conviction, reasoning that his direct participation in the abuse, his efforts to isolate the victim, and his own description of her departure as an 'escape' allowed a reasonable jury to find he knowingly engaged in a scheme of forced labor.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the constitutionality of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act's (TVPA) broad definition of 'serious harm,' which is critical for prosecuting modern forced labor cases. By rejecting the vagueness challenge, the court affirms that coercion can be non-physical and psychological, and it must be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable person in the victim's specific, vulnerable circumstances. This precedent strengthens the government's ability to combat human trafficking that relies on psychological manipulation, isolation, and threats of non-physical harm rather than physical restraint. The ruling ensures the statute remains a potent tool against sophisticated forms of exploitation.
