## Facts

- Timothy H. Bradley and Kathleen Mary O’Dell operated a tree removal business in New Hampshire and recruited Jamaican workers for seasonal labor.
- In 1999, they recruited Livingston Wilson and Garth Clarke in Jamaica, promising higher wages and housing; after arrival, the workers were paid less and housed in a trailer lacking basic utilities.
- The workers were subjected to yelling, intimidation, and monitoring; Clarke fled to New York within about a week.
- O’Dell threatened Clarke with physical harm and threatened to contact law enforcement and immigration authorities if he did not return; Bradley stated he would take a gun to look for Clarke.
- After Clarke left, the defendants seized Wilson’s passport and plane tickets; Bradley allegedly shoved and repeatedly berated Wilson at work.
- When Wilson’s visa expired, he returned to Jamaica; the defendants later recruited additional Jamaican workers with similar wage promises and imposed similar conditions.
- The government alleged the defendants used threats, abuse of immigration-related legal process, document confiscation, and financial pressure (including “working off” costs) to compel continued labor.
- A federal jury in the District of New Hampshire convicted both defendants of forced labor under 18 U.S.C. § 1589 and related offenses; they appealed, challenging the jury instructions and the sufficiency of the evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether the jury instructions erroneously defined “serious harm” and the coercion standard for “forced labor” under 18 U.S.C. § 1589 by using an overly broad or improperly subjective approach.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support forced-labor convictions where the workers were paid (including wages above minimum wage), were not physically confined, and could theoretically leave.
3. Whether the sentences imposed under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines were proper.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences.
- The court held the jury instructions adequately captured § 1589’s coverage of nonphysical coercion and properly applied a reasonable-person-in-the-victim’s-circumstances framework.
- The court held the evidence permitted a rational jury to find that the defendants obtained labor through prohibited means, including threats of serious harm and threatened abuse of legal process.
- The court rejected the argument that forced labor requires physical imprisonment or total nonpayment.
- The judgment was later vacated and remanded by the Supreme Court on sentencing in light of *Booker*, without disturbing the court’s § 1589 analysis.

## Legal Principles

- “Forced labor” under 18 U.S.C. § 1589 includes labor obtained through nonviolent, nonphysical coercion.
- “Serious harm” may be physical, psychological, financial, or legal harm, so long as it would compel a reasonable person in the victim’s situation to continue working against their will.
- The coercion inquiry is contextual: the factfinder may consider the victim’s circumstances, including immigration status, isolation, and economic vulnerability, in assessing the effect of threats and conduct.
- Threatened abuse of law or legal process—such as leveraging immigration enforcement—can satisfy § 1589, even absent physical restraint.

## Conclusion

The court upheld forced-labor convictions where the defendants used a combination of intimidation, immigration-related threats, confiscation of travel documents, and economic pressure to compel migrant workers to keep laboring, confirming that § 1589 reaches coercion beyond physical captivity.


United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 2004)