Brooklyn’s Bizarre Case: Only Conspiracy on the Menu for OneTaste
Last week, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York won a battle in its case against OneTaste defendants Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz.
But they may have lost the war.
Happily for the prosecutors, the mainstream media missed the significance of the battle won or lost.
Last year, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of NY filed an eight-page indictment that charged the two women with forced labor conspiracy.
Note the word conspiracy. It will be important later.
Daedone and Cherwitz sought to have the indictment dismissed because it did not mention who, what, where, when, or how the defendants forced anyone to labor.
The US Attorney brilliantly argued against dismissal.
He wrote in his response papers, “the defendants overlook that the instant case charges a conspiracy and not a substantive offense. The defendants could be proven guilty if they never forced any victim to do anything—so long as the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they agreed to do so.”
Conspiracy is a federal charge, the US Attorney reminded the judge and the defendants, in which a defendant does not have to commit a crime but only agrees to execute it with one or more people.
Judge Diane Gujarati agreed with the US Attorney and denied the dismissal, though the indictment fails to mention a single instance of alleged forced labor.
Judge Diane Gujarati
She denied it because the prosecutors were right.
Conspiracy, Not Coercion: The Curious Case Against OneTaste Founders
In their one-count indictment, the prosecutors alleged a conspiracy and not a “substantive crime” against Daedone and Cherwitz.
A substantive crime is an illegal act that directly violates a law.
The primary offenses of our legal system – theft, murder, assault, robbery, fraud, drug trafficking, forced labor – are substantive crimes.
Crimes that are not substantive generally relate to acts preparing for the substantive crime.
These can include attempts to commit a crime, conspiracy to commit a crime, aiding and abetting a crime, or obstruction of justice.
While these actions may not be a crime on their own because they might not result in the crime’s completion, they are still punishable in the federal system because they relate to the intent to commit a crime.
For example, if someone commits burglary, that’s a substantive crime. However, suppose two people plan to commit burglary but never carry it out. In that case, they might still be charged with the attempt to commit burglary or conspiracy to commit burglary, which is not a substantive crime but still punishable due to its connection to the intended substantive crime.
Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz walking near the Brooklyn Federal Courthouse with friends and supporters.
US Attorney Banks on Conspiracy in Absence of Actual Crime
In the case against Daedone and Cherwitz, the US Attorney made it clear that he charged the two women with the non-substantive crime of conspiracy to commit forced labor and not the substantive crime of forced labor.
It is important. It is why the indictment did not mention who, what, where, when, or how the defendants forced anyone to labor.
The US Attorney does not have evidence that Daedone and Cherwitz forced anyone to do any labor.
That is not my opinion. This is what the US Attorney said in his court filing opposing the dismissal of the indictment.
He said his case is not forced labor but conspiracy to commit forced labor.
That’s the only charge in the indictment.
Defendants are typically charged with both forced labor and forced labor conspiracy.
But this case is different. There is only a conspiracy charge.
But how do we know there wasn’t any forced labor?
Because the FBI investigated Daedone and Cherwitz for five years before the US Attorney indicted them.
Because the US Attorney is not the defendants’ friend. He is not doing them a favor by charging them only with conspiracy, not forced labor. He is not trying to help them. The US Attorney is trying to put them in prison, garner good headlines, increase his conviction stats, and keep the million he persuaded a judge to let him seize.
None of that is friendly. It is adversarial.
The US Attorney charged Daedone and Cherwitz with conspiracy to commit forced labor and not the substantive crime of forced labor for only one reason on God’s good and green earth: He can’t prove that Daedone and Cherwitz forced anyone to labor.
If he could prove it, he would have charged it.
It would be a two-count indictment — forced labor and forced labor conspiracy if he could prove they forced anyone to labor.
But it is a one-count indictment — conspiracy to commit forced labor.
Happily for the US Attorney, the mainstream media won’t figure it out and will continue to write about it as if it were a forced labor case.
