## Facts

- Arlan Dean Kaufman and Linda Joyce Kaufman, husband and wife, jointly owned and operated “Kaufman House Residential Care Treatment Center,” an unlicensed group home for severely and chronically mentally ill adults in rural Kansas.
- From about 1981 through late 2004, they charged government programs, private insurers, and residents’ families for purported psychotherapy and nursing services.
- Law enforcement and a federal investigation found residents were required to perform farm labor while unclothed and were supervised by Dr. Kaufman.
- The government presented evidence that the Kaufmans compelled residents to appear nude and perform sexual acts, which the Kaufmans characterized as “therapy,” and that they videotaped this conduct.
- The government alleged a coercive regime involving force or threats of force, physical restraint, threats of institutionalization and loss of freedom, creation of indebtedness, and secrecy/isolation to compel labor and compliance.
- A federal grand jury charged the Kaufmans with, among other offenses, involuntary servitude (18 U.S.C. § 1584), forced labor (18 U.S.C. § 1589), and health-care fraud-related crimes.
- After a five-week jury trial in the District of Kansas, Arlan Kaufman was convicted on 31 counts and Linda Kaufman on 30 counts.
- The jury was instructed that involuntary servitude is compulsory service against a victim’s will, and that “services” means “conduct or performance that assists or benefits someone or something.”

## Issues

1. Whether a district court order prohibiting the defendants from making direct eye contact with victim-witnesses during testimony violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and warranted reversal under plain-error review.
2. Whether the jury instructions defining “labor” and “services” for 18 U.S.C. §§ 1584 and 1589 were erroneous because they were not limited to economic work and could reach coerced nudity and sexual acts.
3. Whether, under plain-error review, any asserted error affected substantial rights and seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- Applying plain-error review, the court held the no-eye-contact order did not warrant reversal because any error was not clear or obvious and the defendants did not show prejudice.
- The court held the broad instruction defining “services” as conduct or performance that assists or benefits someone or something was not plainly erroneous under §§ 1584 and 1589.
- The court concluded the defendants failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome with different instructions, given the evidence of compelled farm work and other compelled conduct obtained through coercion.

## Legal Principles

- When an appellant fails to preserve a claim as raised on appeal, review is for plain error: (1) error, (2) that is clear or obvious, (3) affecting substantial rights (typically a reasonable probability of a different outcome), and (4) seriously affecting the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
- A trial-management restriction intended to protect vulnerable witnesses does not necessarily violate the Confrontation Clause where the defendant remains present, cross-examination occurs through counsel, and the jury can observe witness demeanor; reversal still requires showing plain error and prejudice.
- For forced labor under 18 U.S.C. § 1589, the statutory focus is on obtaining “labor or services” by prohibited means (e.g., force, threats, coercion), and “services” need not be limited to strictly economic work when the compelled conduct assists or benefits the defendant.
- Under plain-error review, appellants must make a specific showing of prejudice; even if an instruction is debatable, affirmance is proper absent a reasonable probability the verdict would have differed.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit upheld the Kaufmans’ convictions, ruling that the no-eye-contact restriction for victim-witness testimony and the jury’s broad definition of “services” were not plainly erroneous and, in any event, the defendants failed to show prejudice sufficient to warrant reversal.


United States v. Kaufman, 546 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2008)