## Facts

- From about 1999 to 2005, Maude Paulin brought a young Haitian girl to the United States and compelled her to perform extensive domestic labor.
- The girl allegedly worked extremely long hours and was controlled through deprivation, corporal punishment, and threats, including threats of deportation.
- State authorities removed the girl from Paulin’s home.
- A federal grand jury charged Paulin with: (1) conspiracy to violate rights secured by the Thirteenth Amendment by forcing involuntary servitude (18 U.S.C. § 241); (2) obtaining forced labor (18 U.S.C. § 1589); and (3) harboring an alien for private financial gain (8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii)).
- A jury in the Southern District of Florida convicted Paulin on all counts, and she appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the forced-labor conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1589 violated the Ex Post Facto Clause because the jury heard evidence of coercive conduct predating the statute’s effective date and the case was not clearly limited to post-enactment conduct.
2. Whether the § 241 conspiracy count was constructively amended at trial, in violation of the Fifth Amendment, by the government’s theory or the jury instructions.
3. Whether the jury instructions on harboring “for private financial gain” were erroneous for failing to require acquittal if Paulin acted with mixed motives, including charitable motives.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed all convictions.
- On the Ex Post Facto claim, the court applied plain-error review because the argument was not raised below and held there was no reversible error given sufficient post-enactment evidence supporting the § 1589 conviction.
- The court held Count 1 was not constructively amended because the trial proof and instructions tracked the indictment’s charged conspiracy to impose involuntary servitude.
- The court held the harboring instruction was not erroneous because “private financial gain” need not be the defendant’s exclusive motive.

## Legal Principles

- Under plain-error review, an Ex Post Facto challenge based on admission of pre-enactment conduct fails when post-enactment evidence independently supports the conviction and there is no reasonable likelihood the verdict rested solely on pre-enactment conduct.
- A constructive amendment occurs only when trial proceedings alter an essential element or broaden the bases for conviction beyond what the grand jury charged; consistency between indictment, proof, and instructions defeats the claim.
- For harboring an alien “for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain” under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), financial gain need not be the exclusive purpose; mixed motives do not preclude liability if financial gain is a purpose.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit upheld Paulin’s convictions, finding no plain ex post facto error in the forced-labor count, no constructive amendment of the Thirteenth Amendment conspiracy count, and no instructional error on harboring for private financial gain because the statute does not require an exclusively financial motive.


United States v. Paulin, 329 F. App’x 232 (11th Cir. 2009)