Base de données Jurisprudence

Traite des personnes

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

Résumé des faits

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.

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

Mots-clefs

Trafficking in Persons Protocol:
Article 3, Protocole contre la traite des personnes
Artículo 5, Protocole contre la traite des personnes
Actes:
Recrutement
Transport
Hébergement
Moyens:
Menace de recours ou le recours à la force ou à d'autres formes de contrainte
Fraude
Tromperie
Abus d’autorité ou d’une situation de vulnérabilité
Fins d’exploitation:
Travail ou les services forcés
Formes de la Traite:
Transnationale
Secteur dans lequel l'exploitation a lieu:
Agriculture

Questions transversales

Considérations liées à l'égalité des genres

Détails

• Auteur principal féminin

Informations sur la procédure

Système juridique:
Droit commun
Décision judiciaire la plus récente:
Tribunal de première instance
Type d'Action Juridique:
Criminel / pénal
 

Victime / Demandeurs de la première instance

Victime:
L.W.
Sexe:
Homme
Nationalité:
Jamaïcain
Victime:
G.C.
Sexe:
Homme
Nationalité:
Jamaïcain
Victime:
M.S.
Sexe:
Homme
Nationalité:
Jamaïcain
Victime:
A.F.
Sexe:
Homme
Nationalité:
Jamaïcain
Victime:
D.H.
Sexe:
Homme
Nationalité:
Jamaïcain

Défendeurs / Répondants de la première instance

Prévenu:
Timothy H. Bradley
Sexe:
Homme
Ancienneté:
43
Prévenu:
Kathleen Mary O’Dell
Sexe:
Femme
Ancienneté:
48
Raisonnement juridique:

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.

Accusations / Demandes d’indemnité / Décisions

Prévenu:
Timothy H. Bradley
Prévenu:
Kathleen Mary O’Dell
Législation/Code:
18 U.S.C. Art.371
Détails de charges:
Conspiracy to commit forced labor
Verdict:
Guilty
Détails de charges:
Forced labor
Verdict:
Guilty
Détails de charges:
Trafficking into forced labor
Verdict:
Guilty
Détails de charges:
Document servitude
Verdict:
Guilty
Détails de charges:
Wire fraud
Verdict:
Guilty
Peine de prison:
5 ans 10 Mois
Indemnisation des victimes:
Oui  13052  USD  (10,000-50,000 USD)
In restitution to victims
Décision rendue en appel:
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.

Tribunal

United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire