Case Law Database

Trafficking in persons

United States v. Timothy Bradley, Criminal Case No. 03-CR-61

Fact Summary

During the period from 1999 to September 2001, the defendants Bradley and O’Dell, lured a total of 5 seasonal workers from Jamaica to work at the defendants’ tree removal company in New Hampshire. On two separate occasions, the defendants traveled to Jamaica to recruit workers. The men who agreed to come to the United States were promised wages of between 10-20 USD per hour and lodging on the defendants’ property.

Once in the United States, victims were paid less than the promised wage, and were housed in substandard conditions. For example, the first two workers (L.W. & G.C.), were forced to live in a camping trailer that initially lacked basic necessities such as running water and heat. To maintain control over the victims, the defendants subjected the workers to verbal assaults, threats, and physical abuse. The defendants also confiscated victims’ identity documents and plane tickets. When L.W. fled to New York, Bradley, in the presence of the remaining workers, threatened to travel to New York with his gun to track down the runaway. After the defendants recruited a second group of workers (M.S., A.F., and D.H.), to New Hampshire, O’Dell told the three men that Bradley planned to hire someone in Jamaica to “destroy” the victim who fled to New York. The defendants also impeded the victims’ access to medical care, and closely monitored their movements outside of the defendants’ property.

Eventually, several workers fled the property and contacted local law enforcement.

Author:
Human Trafficking Database of the University of Michigan Law School

Keywords

Trafficking in Persons Protocol:
Article 3, Trafficking in Persons Protocol
Article 5, Trafficking in Persons Protocol
Acts:
Recruitment
Transportation
Harbouring
Means:
Threat or use of force or other forms of coercion
Fraud
Deception
Abuse of power or a position of vulnerability
Purpose of Exploitation:
Forced labour or services
Form of Trafficking:
Transnational
Sector in which exploitation takes place:
Agriculture

Cross-Cutting Issues

Gender Equality Considerations

Details

• Female principal offender

Procedural Information

Legal System:
Common Law
Latest Court Ruling:
Court of 1st Instance
Type of Proceeding:
Criminal
 

Victims / Plaintiffs in the first instance

Victim:
L.W.
Gender:
Male
Nationality:
Jamaican
Victim:
G.C.
Gender:
Male
Nationality:
Jamaican
Victim:
M.S.
Gender:
Male
Nationality:
Jamaican
Victim:
A.F.
Gender:
Male
Nationality:
Jamaican
Victim:
D.H.
Gender:
Male
Nationality:
Jamaican

Defendants / Respondents in the first instance

Defendant:
Timothy H. Bradley
Gender:
Male
Age:
43
Defendant:
Kathleen Mary O’Dell
Gender:
Female
Age:
48
Legal Reasoning:

A federal jury convicted the defendants on a number of counts related to the forced labor scheme. In January 2004, Bradley and O’Dell were each sentenced to 70 months imprisonment and ordered to pay 13,052 USD in restitution.

Charges / Claims / Decisions

Defendant:
Timothy H. Bradley
Defendant:
Kathleen Mary O’Dell
Legislation / Statute / Code:
18 U.S.C. Art.371
Charge details:
Conspiracy to commit forced labor
Verdict:
Guilty
Charge details:
Forced labor
Verdict:
Guilty
Charge details:
Trafficking into forced labor
Verdict:
Guilty
Charge details:
Document servitude
Verdict:
Guilty
Charge details:
Wire fraud
Verdict:
Guilty
Term of Imprisonment:
5 years 10 Months
Compensation / Payment to Victim:
Yes  13052  USD  (10,000-50,000 USD)
In restitution to victims
Appellate Decision:
Remanded

2nd Instance: Bradley and O’Dell contested both of their convictions and their sentences. In particular, they challenged a number of alleged errors in the district court's jury instructions; the introduction of evidence regarding their treatment of L.W. and G.C. in 1999-2000; and the application of two sentencing enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 2H4.1. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court. [390 F.3d 145 (2004)]

3rd Instance: The Court of Appeals was ordered to remand this case in light of Booker case. The Court of Appeals vacated the defendants’ sentences, and remanded the case for more proceedings to address possible mitigating circumstances that might have reduced their sentences. [545 U.S. 1101 (2005); 426 F.3d 54 (2005)].

On remand in 2006, the district court declined to alter the sentences.

Court

United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire