Frank Parlato
In June 2025, a Brooklyn federal jury convicted Nicole Daedone, 58, co-founder of OneTaste, on conspiracy to commit forced labor.
Prosecutors are seeking the statutory maximum – 240 months.
What the Jury Was Told
It was a five-week trial before Judge Diane Gujarati in the Eastern District of New York.
During closing arguments, prosecutor Kaitlin Farrell said:
“This case is … a conspiracy case. It’s about the Defendants. It’s about their intent.”
“It’s not about whether these victims actually suffered serious harm and whether they actually caused them to work. That is absolutely not the question of this trial.”
“The focus is what the defendants agreed and intended, not whether a particular victim had a choice.”
The message to the jury was clear: You don’t need to find that forced labor happened, or that anyone suffered serious harm, or was held against their will. You just need to find that Daedone and her co-defendant, Rachel Cherwitz, conspired to do these things.
The jury convicted both women.
After the conviction, the government’s position changed.
In its sentencing memorandum, the government argues that:
Daedone should be sentenced as if she committed forced labor. Daedone should also be sentenced as if she committed criminal sexual abuse under 18 U.S.C. § 2242.
The government did not charge either crime in the indictment.
The government is asking the judge to find them guilty without a jury and to punish them for two uncharged crimes, using the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, which is lower than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required for a jury to convict.
The defense argues that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines range for the actual crime the jury convicted the women of is 21 to 27 months.
The 240-month request includes punishment for forced labor and sexual abuse—crimes never charged, never decided by a jury.
The gap between these positions—approximately 18 years—is the difference between what a jury found (forced labor conspiracy) and what the government wants to punish (forced labor, forced labor conspiracy, and sexual abuse).
THE TRICK
What the government is doing has a simple logic:
Step 1: Charge the easier crime.
With a conspiracy charge, the government has to prove only an agreement, not that the forced labor was ever completed.
Step 2: Tell the jury that the actual forced-labor crime doesn’t matter.
The prosecutor said it: “It’s not about whether these victims actually suffered serious harm.”
The jury doesn’t have to find that forced labor occurred. Just an agreement (conspiracy) to commit forced labor.
Step 3: Get the easier conviction.
The jury convicted on conspiracy. They never decided whether forced labor happened, whether anyone was harmed, or whether anyone was held against their will—because the government didn’t charge it.
Step 4: At sentencing, demand punishment for forced labor.
After the jury convicted on conspiracy only, prosecutors argue that the judge (not the jury) should decide whether Daedone committed forced labor and sexual abuse. Seek maximum punishment.
Step 5: The judge becomes the jury.
These findings are made by a judge, not a jury. And the standard drops from “beyond reasonable doubt” to “preponderance of evidence”—basically, 51% likely.
If the judge agrees, the result will be a conviction for conspiracy. Punished for crimes the jury never considered.
The Sex Crime That Wasn’t Charged
The government’s sentencing memo relies on 18 U.S.C. § 2242—the federal criminal sexual abuse statute.
This statute criminalizes causing someone to engage in a sexual act “by threatening or placing that other person in fear.”
The government seeks a seven-level enhancement to Daedone’s Guidelines calculation under this statute. Seven levels under federal guidelines roughly doubles a sentence. In Daedone’s case, this single uncharged crime, combined with other enhancements, transforms a 2-year guidelines recommendation into a 20-year sentence.
Daedone was never charged with violating this statute. No indictment alleged it. No jury heard arguments about it or deliberated on it.
The defense memorandum notes:
“Ms. Daedone was not charged with criminal sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2242, and no complainant alleged, even in discovery, that she committed the offense.”
And:
“[N]o complainant ever alleged that Ms. Daedone used any force, threats, or even coercion to engage in unwanted sexual contact with anyone.”
The government wants the judge to find that Daedone (51%) likely committed this uncharged sex crime and then punish her for it.
What “Fear” Means to the Government
The criminal sexual abuse statute requires that the defendant cause someone to engage in a sexual act by “threatening or placing that other person in fear.”
The Seventh and Tenth Circuits have both held that the statute requires placing the victim “in fear of at least some bodily harm”—not just economic or social pressure. (United States v. Cherry, 7th Cir. 1991; United States v. Flaming, 10th Cir. 2025)
Judge Arun Subramanian in the Southern District of New York recently held in United States v. Combs that § 2242 requires an “imminent concrete threat of harm, such as bodily harm.”
What “fear” does the government claim Daedone inflicted? From the Probation Office’s addendum:
“Fear of being shunned”
“Fear of losing their jobs”
“Fear of possibly losing housing and economic stability”
Notably absent: any claim of imminent physical injury, restraint, or bodily harm.
Here is what the complainants actually said under cross-examination:
Q: “So we can agree that you were free to come and go as you please at OneTaste?”
A: “Yes.”
Q: “No one locked you in anywhere, right?” A: “No.”
Q: “No chains on the door?”
A: “No.”
Q: “You always had the ability to leave OneTaste at any time, right?”
A: “Yes.”
Q: “And when you stayed it was because you chose to stay, correct?”
A: “Yes.”
Q: “And at any day, through whatever period of time that you lived there, you could have walked out the door and not come back, correct?”
A: “Yes, and eventually that’s essentially what I did.”
Q: “Right. It felt emotional leaving, but nothing obstructed you from leaving, right?”
A: “Once we made the decision, nothing obstructed us.”
Q: “Fair to say if you didn’t like your hours or your wages you could get a different job, right?”
A: “Yes.”
Q: “That’s a decision you ultimately made, correct?”
A: “Yes.”
What Real Forced Labor Looks Like
To understand the government’s position, consider cases where actual forced labor was charged and proven.
In United States v. Calimlim, the defendants kept their victim in their house for 19 years. They took her passport. They told her the police would shoot her if she ran away. They threatened that her husband in the Philippines would be arrested. She never walked out the front door. She was confined to the basement during social gatherings. She was forbidden to seek medical care outside the home.
Sentence: 72 months.
In United States v. Toure, the defendants forced a child who began working for them at age nine to labor for 16 years. They beat her. One defendant sat on her back while his wife beat her. They ripped earrings through her earlobes. They forced her to sleep on a park bench.
Sentence: 84 months.
In United States v. Dann, the defendant took the victim’s passport, forbade her from leaving the apartment, forbade her from speaking to anyone, rationed her food, and forced her to sleep on the floor.
Sentence: 60 months.
In United States v. Sabhnani, the defendant forced a victim to sleep on the floor, eat from garbage, beat her, poured scalding water on her, and threatened to murder her and her children.
Sentence: 132 months.
Now consider Nicole Daedone’s case:
Absolutely no one underage
All testified they were free to leave at any time
Every one of them left when they chose
Some returned voluntarily
No physical restraint alleged
No threats of physical violence alleged
No immigration threats
No beatings
No confinement
All complainants were U.S. citizens
All were college-educated
All had family and friends outside OneTaste
The government’s requested sentence: 240 months.
The Constitutional Problem
The defense argues that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee the right to a jury trial to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The government argues that because the sentence it seeks doesn’t exceed the statutory maximum for conspiracy, no constitutional violation occurs.
The Notice Problem
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant the right to be informed of the charges. Due process requires that a defendant have the opportunity to defend against allegations that would affect her punishment.
Before the trial, Daedone’s attorneys requested a Bill of Particulars—a detailed statement of the conduct the government intended to prosecute.
The government stated in opposition to providing the Bill of Particulars:
“The government has not charged a substantive offense. Accordingly, it need not prove that any individual was, in fact, at any time and at any location, subjected to forced labor, directed to engage in sexual activity, or the target of abusive and manipulative tactics.”
In other words, because prosecutors charged only conspiracy, they argued they never had to prove that anyone was actually forced to work or coerced into sex, and did not have to specify who was supposedly victimized, where, and when.
The judge agreed with the prosecution.
At sentencing, the government argues that Daedone should be punished for forced labor, sexual abuse, and abusive tactics.
The defense memorandum states:
“What the government did not disclose is that despite having not charged any substantive offense, it intended to seek punishment for the substantive offense of forced labor and even for criminal sexual abuse which was never alleged even in discovery.”
What This Means
This appears to be the first case in American history where a forced labor conspiracy was the sole charge. Normally, the conspiracy is paired with actual forced labor.
The template:
Charge a lesser offense (conspiracy) that’s easier to prove. Tell the jury it doesn’t need to find that the completed offense occurred. Get the conviction. At sentencing, argue for punishment based on completed offenses that the jury never considered and which the prosecutor told the jury to never consider. Ask the judge to find additional uncharged crimes by preponderance of evidence. Seek the maximum sentence.
This precedent skips the jury and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
It can be expanded. Charge conspiracy to commit fraud, but tell the jury it doesn’t need to find actual fraud. Get the conviction. Then argue at sentencing for punishment for actual fraud, and add money laundering and wire fraud.
The real trial happens at sentencing, where the burden of proof is lower.
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!