联邦法院判决 · 举证与审理程序

United States v. Udeozor

强迫劳动案中性侵证据的可采性

515 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 2008)

美国第四巡回上诉法院72 页原件

被告夫妇被控共谋强迫一名未成年女童从事无偿家务及诊所工作；第四巡回法院维持有罪判决，认定共谋者对该女童的性侵属于以暴力维持强迫劳动的手段，可作为证明强迫劳动共谋的证据。

下载英文原件下载中文译文

所引用的裁判规则

性侵等暴力行为若用于使受害人屈服并维持强迫劳动，即属于共谋的进一步行为，其证明价值不受《联邦证据规则》403条排除。

适用范围

仅适用于第四巡回区（马里兰等州）联邦法院的强迫劳动刑事案件证据认定，不构成USCIS全国性行政先例。

查看官方引用与核查记录

核查日期：2026-11-04 · 官方判决来源

第1章 - 目的与背景
United States v. Udeozor (PDF) , 515 F.3d 260, 265 (4th Cir. 2008) (in upholding conviction for involuntary servitude, finding that sexual abuse of the victim was one of the forms of force used to keep the minor victim in the condition of involuntary servitude).
第10章 - 身份的有效期与延期
United States v. Udeozor (PDF) , 515 F.3d 260, 265 (4th Cir. 2008) (in upholding conviction for involuntary servitude, finding that sexual abuse of the victim was one of the forms of force used to keep the minor victim in the condition of involuntary servitude).
第11章 - 联邦福利与工作许可
United States v. Udeozor (PDF) , 515 F.3d 260, 265 (4th Cir. 2008) (in upholding conviction for involuntary servitude, finding that sexual abuse of the victim was one of the forms of force used to keep the minor victim in the condition of involuntary servitude).
第12章 - 美国境外旅行
United States v. Udeozor (PDF) , 515 F.3d 260, 265 (4th Cir. 2008) (in upholding conviction for involuntary servitude, finding that sexual abuse of the victim was one of the forms of force used to keep the minor victim in the condition of involuntary servitude).
第13章 - 身份的撤销
United States v. Udeozor (PDF) , 515 F.3d 260, 265 (4th Cir. 2008) (in upholding conviction for involuntary servitude, finding that sexual abuse of the victim was one of the forms of force used to keep the minor victim in the condition of involuntary servitude).
第14章 - 保密保护与禁止披露
United States v. Udeozor (PDF) , 515 F.3d 260, 265 (4th Cir. 2008) (in upholding conviction for involuntary servitude, finding that sexual abuse of the victim was one of the forms of force used to keep the minor victim in the condition of involuntary servitude).
第2章 - 资格要求
United States v. Udeozor (PDF) , 515 F.3d 260, 265 (4th Cir. 2008) (in upholding conviction for involuntary servitude, finding that sexual abuse of the victim was one of the forms of force used to keep the minor victim in the condition of involuntary servitude).
第3章 - 主申请人的文件与证据
United States v. Udeozor (PDF) , 515 F.3d 260, 265 (4th Cir. 2008) (in upholding conviction for involuntary servitude, finding that sexual abuse of the victim was one of the forms of force used to keep the minor victim in the condition of involuntary servitude).
第4章 - 家庭成员
United States v. Udeozor (PDF) , 515 F.3d 260, 265 (4th Cir. 2008) (in upholding conviction for involuntary servitude, finding that sexual abuse of the victim was one of the forms of force used to keep the minor victim in the condition of involuntary servitude).
第5章 - 家庭成员的证明文件和证据
United States v. Udeozor (PDF) , 515 F.3d 260, 265 (4th Cir. 2008) (in upholding conviction for involuntary servitude, finding that sexual abuse of the victim was one of the forms of force used to keep the minor victim in the condition of involuntary servitude).
第6章 - 真实善意认定
United States v. Udeozor (PDF) , 515 F.3d 260, 265 (4th Cir. 2008) (in upholding conviction for involuntary servitude, finding that sexual abuse of the victim was one of the forms of force used to keep the minor victim in the condition of involuntary servitude).
第7章 - 裁定
United States v. Udeozor (PDF) , 515 F.3d 260, 265 (4th Cir. 2008) (in upholding conviction for involuntary servitude, finding that sexual abuse of the victim was one of the forms of force used to keep the minor victim in the condition of involuntary servitude).
第8章 - 年度配额与等待名单
United States v. Udeozor (PDF) , 515 F.3d 260, 265 (4th Cir. 2008) (in upholding conviction for involuntary servitude, finding that sexual abuse of the victim was one of the forms of force used to keep the minor victim in the condition of involuntary servitude).
第9章 - 递解出境程序中的申请人
United States v. Udeozor (PDF) , 515 F.3d 260, 265 (4th Cir. 2008) (in upholding conviction for involuntary servitude, finding that sexual abuse of the victim was one of the forms of force used to keep the minor victim in the condition of involuntary servitude).

以上记录用于核对官方对具体规则的引用。部分推翻、法律修订或有管辖权法院的后续判决，可能影响其适用范围。

页码

完整中文参考译文，按原文页码与段落对应，保留标题、引注及脚注。官方文本为英文原件。

原文第 1 页

No. 06-4467

第06-4467号

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ____________________

美国联邦上诉法院第四巡回审判区 ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

美利坚合众国，

Plaintiff-Appellee

原告-被上诉人

诉

ADAOBI STELLA UDEOZOR,

阿道比·斯特拉·乌德奥佐，

Defendant-Appellant ____________________

被告-上诉人 ____________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ____________________

基于对马里兰地区美国联邦地区法院的上诉 ____________________

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS APPELLEE ____________________

美利坚合众国作为被上诉人的辩护状 ____________________

WAN J. KIM Assistant Attorney General JESSICA DUNSAY SILVER DIRK C. PHILLIPS Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Appellate Section Ben Franklin Station P.O. Box 14403 Washington, D.C. 20044-4403 (202) 305-4876

WAN J. KIM 助理司法部长 JESSICA DUNSAY SILVER DIRK C. PHILLIPS 律师美国司法部民权司上诉科本·富兰克林站邮政信箱 14403 华盛顿特区 20044-4403 (202) 305-4876

原文第 2 页

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

页码

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ....................................................................... 1

管辖权声明 ....................................................................... 1

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ..................................................................................... 1

问题陈述 ..................................................................................... 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................................... 2

案件陈述 ............................................................................... 2

STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................... 3

事实陈述 ...................................................................................... 3

1. General Background ........................................................................... 3

1. 一般背景 ........................................................................... 3

2. The Victim’s Work In Defendant’s Home And Office ......................... 4

2. 受害者在被告家中和办公室的工作 ......................... 4

3. Defendant’s And George Udeozor’s Control Over And Abuse Of The Victim ...................................................................................... 6

3. 被告和乔治·乌德奥佐对受害者的控制与虐待 ...................................................................................... 6

4. The Victim’s Exit From Defendant’s Home ........................................ 9

4. 受害者离开被告的家 ........................................ 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................. 11

论点摘要 ............................................................................. 11

ARGUMENT

论点

I THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN ADMITTING EVIDENCE REGARDING THE CO-CONSPIRATOR’S SEXUAL ABUSE OF THE VICTIM .................................................................................... 14

I 地区法院在采纳关于共谋者对受害者性虐待的证据方面没有滥用其自由裁量权 .................................................................................... 14

A. The Challenged Evidence Was Properly Admitted ................ 15

A. 受质疑的证据被适当采纳 ................ 15

1. The Evidence Is Not Unfairly Prejudicial ........................ 20

1. 该证据不具有不公平的偏见 ........................ 20

2. The Existence Of Allegedly Less Prejudicial Evidence Did Not Preclude Admission Of The Challenged Evidence ............................................................. 22

2. 存在据称偏见较小的证据并不妨碍采纳受质疑的证据 ............................................................. 22

3. The Co-Conspirator’s Sexual Abuse Of The Victim Was In Furtherance Of The Conspiracy .............................. 24

3. 共谋者对受害者的性虐待是为了推进共谋 .............................. 24

原文第 3 页

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued): PAGE

目录（续）：页码

B. Any Error In Admitting The Challenged Evidence Was Harmless ......................................................................... 25

B. 采纳受质疑证据中的任何错误均属无害 ......................................................................... 25

1. Defendant Was Acquitted On The Charge To Which The Challenged Evidence Was Most Relevant .................................................................................... 26

1. 被告在受质疑证据最为相关的指控上被宣告无罪 .................................................................................... 26

2. The Evidence Against Defendant Was Overwhelming .............................................................. 26

2. 针对被告的证据是压倒性的 .............................................................. 26

3. Defendant’s Theory Of The Case Was Weak .................. 28

3. 被告的案件理论薄弱 .................. 28

II ADMISSION OF RECORDED CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN A CO-CONSPIRATOR AND THE VICTIM DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS ................................................................. 30

II 采纳共谋者与受害者之间录音对话并未侵犯被告的第六修正案权利 ................................................................. 30

A. The Challenged Evidence Was Properly Admitted ................ 30

A. 受质疑的证据被适当采纳 ................ 30

1. The Co-Conspirator Statements Contained In The Recordings Are Not Testimonial ................................ 30

1. 录音中包含的共谋者陈述不属于证言 ................................ 30

2. The Challenged Statements Are Not Exculpatory ........ 36

2. 受质疑的陈述不具有开脱罪责性质 ........ 36

B. Any Error In Admitting The Recordings Was Harmless ........ 38

B. 采纳录音中的任何错误均属无害 ........ 38

III THE DISTRICT COURT’S USE OF SPECIAL FINDINGS WAS PROPER ............................................................................................... 39

III 地区法院使用特别裁决是适当的 ............................................................................................... 39

A. The Special Verdict Form Was Proper ......................................... 40

A. 特别裁决表格是适当的 ......................................... 40

B. The Jury Specified The Object Of The Conspiracy ................... 44

B. 陪审团明确了共谋的目标 ................... 44

C. Inclusion Of The Challenged Language In The Indictment Given To The Jury Was Not Plain Error ................ 46

C. 在提交给陪审团的起诉书中包含受质疑的语言不构成明显错误 ................ 46

-ii-

原文第 4 页

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued): PAGE

目录（续）：页码

IV DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE WAS REASONABLE .................... 50

IV 被告的刑罚是合理的 .................... 50

A. Defendant’s Sentence Is Substantively Reasonable ............... 51

A. 被告的刑罚在实质上是合理的 ............... 51

B. Defendant’s Sentence Is Procedurally Reasonable ................ 56

B. 被告的刑罚在程序上是合理的 ................ 56

C. Defendant’s Sentence Is Reasonable Under Section 3553(a) ....................................................................... 58

C. 根据第3553(a)条，被告的刑罚是合理的 ....................................................................... 58

CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 60

结论 ...................................................................................................... 60

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

合规证明

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

送达证明

-iii-

原文第 5 页

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

权威目录

CASES: PAGE

案例：页码

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) .................................................. 12, 41

Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987) ................................................... 34

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) ........................................... 31, 34-35

Davis v. Washington, 126 S. Ct. 2266 (2006) .................................................. 31-32

Lowther v. United States, 455 F.2d 657 (10th Cir. 1972) ..................................... 49

Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) ............................................................ 39

Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) ...................................... 18, 23-24

United States v. Adams, 2007 WL 4209 (10th Cir. 2007) ..................................... 43

United States v. Akinkoye, 185 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. 1999) ...................................... 57

United States v. Alzanki, 54 F.3d 994 (1st Cir. 1995) ........................................... 15

United States v. Beal, 430 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2005) ............................................. 42

United States v. Bokman, 2007 WL 216290 (4th Cir. 2007) ................................ 56

United States v. Bolden, 325 F.3d 471 (4th Cir. 2003) ......................................... 45

United States v. Bonetti, 277 F.3d 441 (4th Cir. 2002) ................................... 16, 24

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) ................................................ 12, 41

United States v. Canady, 139 Fed. Appx. 499 (4th Cir. 2005) ....................... 31, 35

United States v. Console, 13 F.3d 641 (3d Cir. 1993) .......................................... 43

-iv-

原文第 6 页

CASES (continued): PAGE

案例（续）：页码

United States v. Cooper, 201 Fed. Appx. 155 (4th Cir. 2006) .............................. 56

United States v. Coward, 669 F.2d 180 (4th Cir. 1982) ........................................ 49

United States v. Dorsey, 45 F.3d 809 (4th Cir. 1995) ........................................... 38

United States v. Duncan, 598 F.2d 839 (4th Cir. 1979) ........................................ 20

United States v. Ellis, 121 F.3d 908 (4th Cir. 1997) ................................. 40, 45, 48

United States v. Ellis, 460 F.3d 920 (7th Cir. 2006) ............................................. 31

United States v. Evans, 272 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2001) ........................................ 18

United States v. Ham, 998 F.2d 1247 (4th Cir. 1993) ............................... 19-20, 22

United States v. Heater, 63 F.3d 311 (4th Cir. 1995) ........................................... 20

United States v. Hedgepeth, 434 F.3d 609 (3d Cir. 2006) ............................... 42-43

United States v. Hendricks, 395 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2005) ..................................... 35

United States v. Hicks, 103 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 1996) ........................................... 19

United States v. Hinton, 423 F.3d 355 (3d Cir. 2005) .......................................... 31

United States v. Holt, 460 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2006) ................................ 20-21, 26

United States v. Iskander, 407 F.3d 232 (4th Cir. 2005) ...................................... 38

United States v. Jackson, 167 F.3d 1280 (9th Cir. 1999) ................................ 53, 56

United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477 (4th Cir. 2006) ...................................... 30, 38

United States v. Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456 (4th Cir. 2004) .......................................... 56

-v-

原文第 7 页

CASES (continued): PAGE

案例（续）：页码

United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988) ............................................ 15-16

United States v. Leavis, 853 F.2d 215 (4th Cir. 1988) .......................................... 23

United States v. Lentz, 383 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2004) ................................ 46-47, 50

United States v. Linwood, 142 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 1998) .......................... 22-23, 36

United States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595 (4th Cir. 1998) ............................................. 14

United States v. Lowe, 65 F.3d 1137 (4th Cir. 1995) ............................................ 36

United States v. Marshall, 985 F.2d 901 (7th Cir. 1993) ...................................... 49

United States v. Masters, 924 F.2d 1362 (7th Cir. 1991) ...................................... 26

United States v. Mercado, 474 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 2007) ...................................... 56

United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375 (4th Cir. 2006) ............................ 50

United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2006) ..................................... 50

United States v. Morsley, 64 F.3d 907 (4th Cir. 1995) ......................................... 25

United States v. Norman T., 129 F.3d 1099 (10th Cir. 1997) ................... 22-23, 36

United States v. Oglesbee, 177 Fed. Appx. 359 (4th Cir. 2006) ........................... 19

United States v. Perkins, 470 F.3d 150 (4th Cir. 2006) ........................................ 30

United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984) .................................................... 53-54

United States v. Quicksey, 525 F.2d 337 (4th Cir. 1975) ...................................... 53

United States v. Ramirez, 710 F.2d 535 (9th Cir. 1983) .................................. 48-49

-vi-

原文第 8 页

CASES (continued): PAGE

案例（续）：页码

United States v. Reed, 147 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 1998) .......................................... 41

United States v. Rhynes, 206 F.3d 349 (4th Cir. 1999) ........................................ 52

United States v. Rivera, 412 F.3d 562 (4th Cir. 2005) .................................... 14, 30

United States v. Robinson, 2007 WL 98110 (4th Cir. 2007) ................................ 42

United States v. Rodriguez, 94 Fed. Appx. 139 (4th Cir. 2004) ........................... 39

United States v. Rosario-Diaz, 202 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2000) ................................. 19

United States v. Ross, 131 F.3d 970 (11th Cir. 1997) ........................................... 53

United States v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2004) ................................. 31, 34-35

United States v. Schuler, 458 F.3d 1148 (10th Cir. 2006) .................................... 48

United States v. Short, 671 F.2d 178 (6th Cir. 1982) ............................................ 48

United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 2006) ........................................... 44

United States v. Solina, 733 F.2d 1208 (7th Cir. 1984) ........................................ 49

United States v. Stonefish, 402 F.3d 691 (6th Cir. 2005) ...................................... 41

United States v. Thomas, 900 F.2d 37 (4th Cir. 1990) .................................... 53-54

United States v. Tipton, 90 F.3d 861 (4th Cir. 1996) ............................................ 23

United States v. Townley, 472 F.3d 1267 (10th Cir. 2007) ................................... 32

United States v. Wallace, 461 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2006) .......................................... 42

United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997) ......................................................... 56

-vii-

原文第 9 页

CASES (continued): PAGE

案件（续）：页码

United States v. Weaver, 282 F.3d 302 (4th Cir. 2002) ........................................ 25

United States v. Wells, 163 F.3d 889 (4th Cir. 1998) ...................................... 14, 45

United States v. Williams, 41 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. 1994) ........................................ 25

United States v. Williams, 445 F.3d 724 (4th Cir. 2006) ................................ 14, 21

United States v. Wooten, 688 F.2d 941 (4th Cir. 1982) ........................................ 26

Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594 (1994) ................................................ 37

RULES:

规则：

Fed. R. App. P. 30(a)(2) ........................................................................................ 47

Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) ................................................................................... 61

Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d) .............................................................................................. 48

Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(1) .......................................................................................... 22

Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 37

Fed. R. Evid. 807 ................................................................................................... 38

STATUTES:

制定法：

8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) ................................................................................ 2, 51

8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) .................................................................................... 51

18 U.S.C. 371 ........................................................................................................... 2

18 U.S.C. 1584 .................................................................................................. 2, 51

-viii-

原文第 10 页

STATUTES (continued): PAGE

制定法（续）：页码

18 U.S.C. 3553(a) ........................................................................................... 13, 50

-ix-

原文第 11 页

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ____________________

美利坚合众国第四巡回上诉法院 ____________________

No. 06-4467

第06-4467号

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

美利坚合众国，

Plaintiff-Appellee

被上诉人（原告）

诉

ADAOBI STELLA UDEOZOR,

ADAOBI STELLA UDEOZOR，

Defendant-Appellant ____________________

上诉人（被告） ____________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ____________________

就马里兰地区美国联邦地区法院上诉 ____________________

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS APPELLEE ______________

美利坚合众国作为被上诉人的答辩状 ______________

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

管辖权陈述

The government concurs in defendant’s jurisdictional statement.

政府同意被告的管辖权陈述。

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

问题陈述

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of

1. 地区法院在采纳被告同谋实施性虐待的证据方面是否滥用其裁量权。

sexual abuse by defendant’s co-conspirator.

性虐待由被告的同谋实施。

2. Whether defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the

2. 被告的第六修正案权利是否因采纳受害人与被告同谋之间

admission of recorded conversations between the victim and defendant’s co-

的录音对话而受到侵犯。

原文第 12 页

-2-

conspirator.

同谋之间的录音对话。

3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in utilizing a special

3. 地区法院在使用特别裁决表方面是否滥用其裁量权，或是否因未

verdict form, or committed plain error by not sua sponte redacting certain language

依职权在将起诉书提供给陪审团之前删除其中某些措辞而犯下明显错误。

from the indictment before providing it to the jury.

从起诉书中删除某些措辞后再提供给陪审团。

4. Whether defendant’s sentence is reasonable.

4. 被告的刑罚是否合理。

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

案件陈述

On August 18, 2004, a federal grand jury returned a second superseding

2004年8月18日，联邦大陪审团返回第二份替代起诉书，

indictment charging defendant, Adaobi Stella Udeozor, and her former husband,

指控被告Adaobi Stella Udeozor及其前夫

George Udeozor, with conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 (Count I), holding

George Udeozor共谋违反18 U.S.C. 371（第一项罪状），

a juvenile in involuntary servitude in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1584 (Count II), and

使一名未成年人处于非自愿奴役状态，违反18 U.S.C. 1584（第二项罪状），以及

harboring a juvenile alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (B)(i)

窝藏一名未成年外国人，违反8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii)和(B)(i)

(Count III). J.A. 22-28. 1 Following a jury trial in October and November 2004,

（第三项罪状）。J.A. 22-28。1 在2004年10月和11月的陪审团审判后，

defendant was convicted on Counts I and III. J.A. 2117-2118.

被告在第一项和第三项罪状上被定罪。J.A. 2117-2118。

On April 18, 2006, the district court sentenced defendant to 87 months’

2006年4月18日，地区法院判处被告87个月

imprisonment, J.A. 2261, and ordered her to pay the victim $110,249.60 in

监禁，J.A. 2261，并命令她向受害人支付110,249.60美元

restitution, J.A. 2264. This appeal followed. 2

赔偿，J.A. 2264。随后提起本上诉。2

1 George Udeozor no longer resides in this country. The government’s efforts to extradite him to the United States to stand trial have been unsuccessful.

1 George Udeozor不再居住在本国。政府将其引渡至美国接受审判的努力未能成功。

2 Defendant filed an emergency motion in this Court seeking bail pending (continued...)

2 被告向本法院提交紧急动议，寻求在上诉期间保释（续...）

原文第 13 页

-3-

STATEMENT OF FACTS 3

事实陈述3

1. General Background

1. 一般背景

The victim was 14 years old when she arrived in defendant’s home in

受害人于1996年10月抵达被告家中时年仅14岁。J.A. 417, 444。

October 1996. J.A. 417, 444. She left approximately five years later, at age 19.

1996年10月。J.A. 417, 444。她大约5年后离开，时年19岁。

The victim was born and raised in Nigeria. She, her parents, and six siblings

受害人在尼日利亚出生和长大。她、她的父母和六个兄弟姐妹

lived in one room of a five-room house that lacked indoor plumbing. J.A. 417-

住在一栋有五个房间但缺乏室内管道的房屋的一个房间里。J.A. 417-

419. She attended school in Nigeria. J.A. 421. By 1995, the victim – then living

419。她在尼日利亚上学。J.A. 421。到1995年，受害人——当时与

with an aunt – was working toward finishing seventh grade. J.A. 421, 423.

一位姑母同住——正在努力完成七年级学业。J.A. 421, 423。

At that time, her father removed the victim from her aunt’s home, telling her

当时，她的父亲将受害人从她姑母家中带走，告诉她

she would go to the United States with defendant and defendant’s husband, George

她将与被告及被告的丈夫George

Udeozor, and would continue her schooling in America. J.A. 423-424. While

Udeozor一起前往美国，并将在美国继续上学。J.A. 423-424。当

defendant was present, J.A. 199, an agreement was reached between George

被告在场时，J.A. 199，George

Udeozor and the victim’s father whereby the victim would care for defendant’s

Udeozor与受害人的父亲达成协议，受害人将照顾被告的

children and attend school in the United States, and payment for her services would

子女并在美国上学，其服务报酬将

be sent to her parents in Nigeria. J.A. 196, 428. The Udeozors’ promise to educate

寄给其在尼日利亚的父母。J.A. 196, 428。Udeozor夫妇关于让

2(...continued) appeal based on purported medical necessity and the existence of significant legal issues. The government opposed defendant’s request and this Court denied the motion without opinion on August 24, 2006.

2（...续）上诉，基于所称的医疗必要性及存在重大法律问题。政府反对被告的请求，本法院于2006年8月24日未经发表意见即驳回该动议。

3 The facts contained herein are set forth in the light most favorable to the government.

3 本文所载事实以最有利于政府的方式陈述。

原文第 14 页

-4-

the victim was a key part of the agreement, as her father would not otherwise have

受害人接受教育是协议的关键部分，因为她的父亲否则不会

agreed to allow the Udeozors to take her. J.A. 200. At no time did the victim’s

同意让Udeozor夫妇带走她。J.A. 200。受害人的

father give the Udeozors permission to adopt the victim. J.A. 203. Nor did the

父亲从未给予Udeozor夫妇收养受害人的许可。J.A. 203。Udeozor夫妇

Udeozors ever raise the possibility of adoption. J.A. 203-204.

也从未提出收养的可能性。J.A. 203-204。

George Udeozor assured the victim’s father he would obtain the documents

George Udeozor向受害人的父亲保证他将取得

necessary to bring the victim to the United States. J.A. 429-430. Instead, he

将受害人带到美国所需的文件。J.A. 429-430。相反，他

smuggled the victim into the country using the passport of his oldest daughter.

使用其长女的护照将受害人偷运入境。J.A. 437-442, 572, 2096。

J.A. 437-442, 572, 2096. George Udeozor and the victim – then 14 years old –

J.A. 437-442, 572, 2096。George Udeozor与受害人——当时14岁——

arrived at defendant’s home on or about October 1, 1996. J.A. 324, 444. Upon

于1996年10月1日或前后抵达被告家中。J.A. 324, 444。当

seeing the victim when she arrived home from work that evening, defendant

被告当晚下班回家看到受害人时，她

expressed amazement that her husband “pulled it off.” J.A. 447.

对其丈夫“竟然办成了”表示惊讶。J.A. 447。

2. The Victim’s Work In Defendant’s Home And Office

2. 受害人在被告家中和办公室的工作

The victim was required to care for the Udeozors’ five children, clean their

受害人被要求照顾Udeozor夫妇的五个孩子、打扫他们的

house, and cook for the family. She started work each day at approximately 6:00

房屋并为家庭做饭。她每天大约早上6:00

a.m., J.A. 456, and sometimes did not finish until late in the evening. J.A. 350,

开始工作，J.A. 456，有时直到深夜才结束。J.A. 350,

364. At first, the victim shared her duties with Grace Baffoe, a paid live-in nanny.

364。起初，受害人与Grace Baffoe——一名有偿住家保姆——分担家务。

But a few months after the birth of defendant’s sixth child in September, 1997, the

但在1997年9月被告第六个孩子出生几个月后，

paid live-in nanny departed and the victim – just shy of her sixteenth birthday – did

有偿住家保姆离开，受害人——当时还差一点到16岁生日——独自

原文第 15 页

-5-

all the work alone. J.A. 462-463, 417. 4

完成了所有工作。J.A. 462-463, 417。4

Apart from her work in defendant’s home, the victim also worked in

除了在被告家中的工作外，受害人还在

defendant’s medical office. Following the departure of the paid live-in nanny, the

被告的医疗办公室工作。有偿住家保姆离开后，

victim worked in defendant’s office approximately three days per week during the

受害人在学年期间每周在被告办公室工作约三天，

school year, J.A. 580, and five days per week during the summer. J.A. 583. When

J.A. 580，夏季每周工作五天。J.A. 583。当

there, she verified patients’ insurance information, rescheduled patients, answered

在那里时，她核实病人的保险信息、重新安排病人预约、接听

the phone, prepared patients’ charts, cleaned out examination rooms, and escorted

电话、准备病人病历、清理检查室，并陪同

patients to examination rooms to wait to be seen by defendant. J.A. 579.

病人到检查室等待被告诊视。J.A. 579。

Defendant told the victim to say she was defendant’s niece or adopted daughter.

被告告诉受害人要说自己是被告的侄女或养女。

J.A. 581-582. Defendant also told the victim that, if asked why she was working

J.A. 581-582。被告还告诉受害人，如果有人问她为什么在工作

and was not in school, she should say she was enrolled in Montgomery College.

而不上学，她应说自己在Montgomery College注册就读。

J.A. 583. The victim never was paid for her work in defendant’s home or office.

J.A. 583。受害人从未因在被告家中或办公室的工作获得报酬。

J.A. 578-579; J.A. 217 (the victim’s father received only “[o]ne piece of cloth and

J.A. 578-579；J.A. 217（受害人的父亲只收到“一块布和

a bag of rice”).

一袋米”）。

Despite spending between $9,000 and $10,000 per child per year to send her

尽管被告每年为每个孩子花费9,000至10,000美元

oldest children to private school, J.A. 927-929, defendant never allowed the victim

送其最大的几个孩子上私立学校，J.A. 927-929，被告从未允许受害人

to attend school. J.A. 566. The victim asked defendant about school at least twice

上学。J.A. 566。受害人至少每月两次向被告询问

4 Defendant’s and George Udeozor’s mothers sometimes visited the home for extended periods, but their presence did not substantially alter the victim’s workload. J.A. 412-413, 468-469, 836-837.

4 被告和George Udeozor的母亲有时会到家中长期探访，但她们的存在并未实质改变受害人的工作量。J.A. 412-413, 468-469, 836-837。

原文第 16 页

-6-

per month, beginning when she first arrived, but was told she could not attend

上学的事，从她刚到时开始，但被告告诉她不能上学

because she did not have the necessary papers and entered the country using

因为她没有必要的文件，并且是使用

someone else’s passport. J.A. 571-572. George Udeozor typically gave the same

别人的护照入境的。J.A. 571-572。George Udeozor通常给出同样的

response, sometimes telling the victim she would go to school soon. J.A. 575-

回答，有时告诉受害人她很快就能上学。J.A. 575-

576. 5

576。5

3. Defendant’s And George Udeozor’s Control Over And Abuse Of The Victim

3. 被告和George Udeozor对受害人的控制与虐待

The victim was verbally, physically, and sexually abused while living in

受害人在被告家中生活期间遭受言语、身体和性虐待。

defendant’s home. Defendant never abused the victim in public, J.A. 591, and in

被告从未在公开场合虐待受害人，J.A. 591，并且

fact treated her nicely in public, but treated her differently at home. J.A. 1405-

事实上在公开场合对她很好，但在家中对她不同。J.A. 1405-

1406.

1406。

At trial, the victim estimated defendant verbally abused her an average of

在审判中，受害人估计被告平均每周对她进行言语虐待

five times per week, J.A. 475, usually for minor things. J.A. 593. Sometimes these

五次，J.A. 475，通常是因为小事。J.A. 593。有时这些

outbursts were the result of the victim accidentally breaking something, J.A. 477,

爆发是因为受害人不小心打碎东西，J.A. 477，

or of her purported failure to keep the house clean, J.A. 477, properly feed or

或因为她据称未能保持房屋清洁，J.A. 477，未能适当喂养或

control the Udeozor children, J.A. 593, or clean a child’s clothing, J.A. 478. Other

管束Udeozor家的孩子，J.A. 593，或未能清洗孩子的衣物，J.A. 478。其他

times there was no apparent reason. J.A. 474-476. During these outbursts,

时候则没有明显原因。J.A. 474-476。在这些爆发期间，

5 Although a tutor occasionally came to the Udeozor home, the victim testified that he was there for defendant’s children, not for her. J.A. 567. The victim also testified that defendant’s mother did not tutor her during visits to defendant’s home. J.A. 470.

5 尽管偶尔有家教来到Udeozor家，但受害人作证说他是为被告的孩子而来，不是为她。J.A. 567。受害人也作证说，被告的母亲在探访被告家期间没有辅导她。J.A. 470。

原文第 17 页

-7-

defendant would tell the victim she is “not in Nigeria anymore,” and should “stop

被告会告诉受害人她“不再在尼日利亚了”，应该“停止

acting stupid,” or “stop acting bush,” or “stop acting like a goat.” J.A. 475, 490.

表现得愚蠢”，或“停止表现得像乡巴佬”，或“停止表现得像只山羊”。J.A. 475, 490。

There were many instances of physical abuse. Defendant beat the victim

存在许多身体虐待的实例。被告殴打受害人

with an open hand, fist, or object, threw things at her, or twisted and pulled her ear.

用手掌、拳头或物品，向她扔东西，或拧并拉扯她的耳朵。

J.A. 476-477. This physical abuse began within a week of the victim’s arrival in

J.A. 476-477。这种身体虐待在受害人抵达

defendant’s home. J.A. 477.

被告家中一周内就开始了。J.A. 477。

The most severe incident occurred after one of the Udeozor children under

最严重的一次事件发生在受害人照看的Udeozor家孩子之一在

the victim’s care fell and hurt his neck while playing in the house. Defendant

屋内玩耍时摔倒并伤到脖子之后。被告

called the victim upstairs, where George Udeozor was waiting. J.A. 482-484.

把受害人叫到楼上，George Udeozor在那里等着。J.A. 482-484。

They made the victim kneel and raise her hands above her head while defendant

他们让受害人跪下并将双手举过头顶，同时被告

struck the victim’s side more than a dozen times with a flexible wooden cane. J.A.

用一根有弹性的木藤条击打受害人的身体侧面十余次。J.A.

483-485. George Udeozor then struck her on the hand with the metal portion of a

483-485。George Udeozor随后用皮带的金属部分击打她的手，

belt, telling her it was because she hurt his child. J.A. 485-486. Defendant then

告诉她这是因为她伤了他的孩子。J.A. 485-486。被告随后

made the victim kneel for another 45 minutes before allowing her to leave. J.A.

让受害人又跪了45分钟才允许她离开。J.A.

486. Following this beating, the victim had marks on her sides and difficulty

486。这次殴打之后，受害人身体侧面有伤痕并出现

breathing, but received no medical attention. J.A. 487-488.

呼吸困难，但没有得到任何医疗救治。J.A. 487-488。

Another beating occurred after the victim, at defendant’s instruction, cleaned

另一次殴打发生在受害人按照被告的指示打扫

defendant’s room and washed out her jacuzzi, only to have this work undone when

被告的房间并清洗她的按摩浴缸之后，但这项工作后来被

defendant’s children later played in the room. J.A. 488-490. Defendant became

被告的孩子们在房间里玩耍时弄乱了。J.A. 488-490。被告变得

原文第 18 页

-8-

angry and struck the victim on the head with both an open and closed fist. J.A.

愤怒，用张开和握紧的拳头击打受害人的头部。J.A.

489. Another happened when the victim paid the woman who cleaned the Udeozor

489。另一次发生在受害人在受害人和Udeozors一家

home while the victim and the Udeozors were traveling. J.A. 492-495. The home

外出旅行期间付钱给打扫Udeozor家的那名女子时。J.A. 492-495。房子

was not cleaned to defendant’s specifications, and defendant, believing the victim

没有按照被告的要求打扫干净，被告认为受害人

should not have paid the woman, struck the victim with an open and closed fist.

不该付钱给那名女子，便用张开和握紧的拳头击打受害人。

J.A. 492-495.

J.A. 492-495。

Other beatings included incidents where defendant (1) believed the victim

其他殴打包括以下事件：被告(1)认为受害人

broke the tap on the kitchen sink and beat her with an open and closed hand, J.A.

弄坏了厨房水槽的水龙头，便用张开和握紧的手击打她，J.A.

479-480; (2) beat the victim with a shoe, dislocating her wrist and then requiring

479-480；(2)用鞋子击打受害人，使她的手腕脱臼，然后要求

the victim – who received no medical attention for her wrist – to work through the

受害人——其手腕没有得到任何医疗救治——通宵工作

night packing the family’s bags and cleaning prior to their departure the following

打包家人的行李并打扫，以便他们第二天出发

day for an out-of-town trip, J.A. 527-528; and (3) woke the victim in the middle of

去外地旅行，J.A. 527-528；以及(3)在半夜

the night, pulling her ear and making her go downstairs to clean off the kitchen

叫醒受害人，拉扯她的耳朵并让她下楼清理厨房

table, J.A. 570-571.

餐桌，J.A. 570-571。

The victim was raped on a number of occasions by George Udeozor. The

受害人多次被George Udeozor强奸。这些

rapes began in late 1997, J.A. 500, and continued until George Udeozor left the

强奸始于1997年末，J.A. 500，并持续到George Udeozor于

country in 1999. J.A. 511. George Udeozor typically would awaken the victim

1999年离开该国。J.A. 511。George Udeozor通常会在

during the night and take her to the basement of the Udeozor home, where the

夜间叫醒受害人并将她带到Udeozor家的地下室，大多数

majority of the rapes occurred. J.A. 506. In telephone conversations recorded

强奸都发生在那里。J.A. 506。在受害人离开

原文第 19 页

-9-

after the victim left defendant’s home, George Udeozor denied raping her and

被告家后录制的电话交谈中，George Udeozor否认强奸了她并

attempted to convince her the sex was consensual. J.A. 2095-2110.

试图让她相信性行为是双方自愿的。J.A. 2095-2110。

The victim testified George Udeozor threatened to – and did – make the

受害人作证称，George Udeozor威胁——并且确实——在她照看的

rapes longer and more severe when the children under her care misbehaved. J.A.

孩子行为不端时，使强奸持续更长时间且更加严重。J.A.

507. He also told the victim if she ever spoke to anyone about the rapes, he would

507。他还告诉受害人，如果她向任何人谈起这些强奸，他将

send her back to Nigeria and tell her parents she had become a prostitute. J.A.

把她送回尼日利亚并告诉她父母她成了妓女。J.A.

506-507.

506-507。

During her time in their home, the Udeozors exercised near total control

在他们家期间，Udeozors一家对受害人生活的

over all aspects of the victim’s life. Defendant told her the United States was a

方方面面几乎实施了完全的控制。被告告诉她美国是一个

dangerous place, and she would be killed or deported if she attempted to leave the

危险的地方，如果她试图离开Udeozor家，她会被杀害或被驱逐出境。

Udeozor home. J.A. 496-497, 560. Defendant instilled in the victim a fear of

J.A. 496-497, 560。被告尤其向受害人灌输了

police in particular, telling her they would deport her if they saw her. J.A. 497.

对警察的恐惧，告诉她如果警察看到她就会把她驱逐出境。J.A. 497。

This was done to prevent the victim from running away. J.A. 566.

这样做是为了防止受害人逃跑。J.A. 566。

The Udeozors also controlled most of the victim’s contact with her family in

Udeozors一家还控制了受害人与她在尼日利亚家人的

Nigeria, including her incoming and outgoing mail. J.A. J.A. 528-544, 546-547,

大部分联系，包括她的收发邮件。J.A. J.A. 528-544, 546-547,

554. She had only the clothes they provided her, J.A. 545-547, and no money to

554。她只有他们提供给她的衣服，J.A. 545-547，没有钱

spend on herself, J.A. 548.

花在自己身上，J.A. 548。

4. The Victim’s Exit From Defendant’s Home

4. 受害人离开被告家

While not imprisoned in a traditional sense, escaping the Udeozor home was

虽然并非传统意义上的监禁，但逃离Udeozor家

原文第 20 页

-10-

not a viable option for the victim. She did not know anyone, and had nowhere to

对受害人来说并不是一个可行的选择。她不认识任何人，无处

go, no friends, and no money. J.A. 554-555, 634, 769-770. She did not know how

可去，没有朋友，也没有钱。J.A. 554-555, 634, 769-770。她不知道如何

to take a bus, and none ran in the Udeozor’s neighborhood. J.A. 559.

乘坐公交车，而且Udeozor家所在社区没有公交线路。J.A. 559。

What the victim did have was access to a computer, which she taught herself

受害人确实拥有的是使用电脑的机会，她自学

to use. J.A. 560. Through use of the Udeozors’ computer, the victim compiled a

使用电脑。J.A. 560。通过使用Udeozors家的电脑，受害人编制了

list of immigration-related websites, J.A. 596-597, conducting research and making

一份移民相关网站的清单，J.A. 596-597，在下午

contacts during the afternoon while the Udeozor children were in school. J.A. 614-

在下午Udeozor家的孩子们上学期间的接触。J.A. 614-

615. The victim began reaching out for help in September 2001, J.A. 596,

联系。J.A. 614-615。受害人于2001年9月开始寻求帮助，J.A. 596，

communicating with non-profit groups about her ordeal. J.A. 978-982, 986-989.

与非营利组织就其遭遇进行沟通。J.A. 978-982, 986-989。

One of these contacts recommended the victim write a letter to defendant.

其中一个联系人建议受害人给被告写一封信。

J.A. 615-616. She did so, giving the letter to defendant on October 30, 2001. J.A.

J.A. 615-616。她照做了，于2001年10月30日将信交给被告。J.A.

617-618, 2079-2080. A confrontation ensued, after which the victim called the

617-618, 2079-2080。随后发生了对峙，之后受害人打电话给

police, J.A. 625, and fled to the home of a neighbor until police arrived. The

警察，J.A. 625，并逃到邻居家直到警察到达。

victim told the neighbor she had been brought over from Nigeria but not permitted

受害人告诉邻居她是从尼日利亚被带来的但不被允许

to attend school, J.A. 160, and had been “held against her will and * * * abused,”

上学，J.A. 160，并且“被违背意愿扣留并* * *遭受虐待”，

J.A. 156, including being beaten for not properly caring for the Udeozor children,

J.A. 156，包括因未妥善照顾Udeozor家的孩子而被殴打，

J.A. 161.

J.A. 161。

When police arrived, defendant admitted hitting the victim that evening but

警察到达时，被告承认当晚打了受害人，但

protested when the victim sought to leave. J.A. 629-630. Because the victim was

在受害人试图离开时提出抗议。J.A. 629-630。因为受害人

原文第 21 页

-11-

over 18 years of age, however, the police permitted her to leave with them. J.A.

已年满18岁，所以警察允许她随他们离开。J.A.

630.

630。

At some point after midnight the evening the victim left, defendant called

在受害人离开当晚午夜后的某个时候，被告打电话给

the police to report a burglary, telling them upon their arrival it was committed by

警察报告入室盗窃，在警察到达时告诉他们这是由

the person employed to watch her children. J.A. 1093-1094, 1104-1105, 1109.

受雇照看她孩子的人所为。J.A. 1093-1094, 1104-1105, 1109。

But defendant, described by the responding officer as “agitated, * * * upset, angry,

但被告——被出警警官描述为“激动、* * *不安、愤怒

and very demanding,” J.A. 1094, refused to allow police to enter her home to

且非常苛求”，J.A. 1094——拒绝让警察进入她家

investigate. J.A. 1094-1095. She nevertheless insisted the burglary be

进行调查。J.A. 1094-1095。尽管如此，她坚持要求将

documented. J.A. 1094-1096.

入室盗窃记录在案。J.A. 1094-1096。

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

辩论摘要

On appeal, defendant challenges the district court’s (1) admission of

在上诉中，被告对地区法院的以下事项提出质疑：(1)采纳

evidence of sexual abuse by defendant’s co-conspirator, (2) admission of recorded

被告同谋性虐待的证据，(2)采纳被告同谋与受害人之间

conversations between defendant’s co-conspirator and the victim, (3) use of a

的录音交谈，(3)使用

special verdict form and failure to sua sponte redact a certain portion of the

特殊裁决表以及未依职权在将起诉书交给陪审团之前删去其中

indictment before giving it to the jury, and (4) sentence. All of defendant’s

某一部分，以及(4)量刑。被告的所有

arguments fail. This Court therefore should affirm the judgment below.

论点均不成立。因此，本法院应维持下级法院的判决。

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of

1. 地区法院在采纳性虐待证据方面没有滥用自由裁量权。

sexual abuse. The abuse was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, and its

该虐待是为促进共谋而实施的，因此其

probative value thus was not outweighed – let alone substantially outweighed – by

证明价值并未被——更不用说被实质性地——超过

原文第 22 页

-12-

its potentially prejudicial effect under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, particularly

根据《联邦证据规则》403条其潜在的偏见影响，尤其是

when viewed in light of the government’s unique evidentiary burden in

考虑到政府在非自愿奴役案件中

involuntary-servitude cases. Further, any error in admitting this evidence was

独特的举证责任。此外，采纳该证据的任何错误都是

harmless, as defendant was acquitted of the charge to which the evidence was most

无害的，因为被告被判无罪的那项指控正是该证据最具

probative, and the remaining evidence against defendant was overwhelming.

证明力的指控，而针对被告的其余证据是压倒性的。

2. The admission of recorded conversations between defendant’s co-

2. 采纳被告同谋与受害人之间录音交谈

conspirator and the victim did not violate the Confrontation Clause. Precedent

没有违反对质条款。先例

establishes that evidence cannot be testimonial where, as here, the declarant does

确立，在陈述人不能合理预期所质疑的陈述会在审判中使用的情况下——如本案——

not reasonably expect the challenged statements to be used at trial. No reasonable

证据不能具有证言性质。没有任何理性

person would have expected the statements at issue here to be used in such manner.

人会预期本案所涉陈述会以这种方式使用。

Nor were the statements exculpatory, as defendant contends. And any error in

这些陈述也不像被告所主张的那样具有开脱性质。而且，采纳

admitting the statements was harmless for the reasons stated above.

这些陈述的任何错误基于上述理由都是无害的。

3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in using a special verdict

3. 地区法院在使用特殊裁决表让陪审团就量刑

form to have the jury make special findings regarding sentencing. This trial

作出特别认定方面没有滥用自由裁量权。本次审判

occurred after the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S.

发生在最高法院Blakely v. Washington案判决，542 U.S.

296 (2004), but before its decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

296 (2004)之后，但在United States v. Booker案判决，543 U.S. 220

(2005), a period of legal uncertainty during which it was reasonable to submit

(2005)之前，这是一个法律不确定时期，在此期间将

sentencing enhancements to the jury. This is particularly true where, as here, the

量刑加重情节提交陪审团是合理的。在如下情况下尤其如此：本案中

jury was instructed not to address the special findings unless it first determined

陪审团被指示除非首先认定

原文第 23 页

-13-

guilt. Defendant’s additional complaints regarding the jury’s alleged failure to

有罪，否则不得处理特别认定。被告关于陪审团涉嫌未能

specify the object of the conspiracy and the district court’s failure to redact certain

指明共谋目的以及地区法院未能从起诉书中删去某些

language from the indictment were not raised below, and are unfounded at any rate.

措辞的其他申诉未在下级法院提出，而且无论如何都没有依据。

The jury did specify the object of the conspiracy, and the language contained in the

陪审团确实指明了共谋目的，起诉书中所含的

indictment was not prejudicial, particularly when viewed in light of the district

措辞不具有偏见性，尤其是考虑到地区

court’s instructions.

法院的指示。

4. The district court properly calculated defendant’s guideline range based

4. 地区法院根据陪审团关于非自愿奴役是共谋

on the jury’s finding that involuntary servitude was an object of the conspiracy.

目的的认定，正确计算了被告的量刑指南范围。

And the court did not commit clear error in denying defendant’s request for a

而且法院在驳回被告基于其在犯罪中的角色而提出的

downward adjustment based on her role in the offense. Defendant was – at a

下调调整请求方面没有明显错误。被告——至少——

minimum – a co-equal partner in the conspiracy. Finally, the district court’s

是共谋中的同等伙伴。最后，地区法院的

sentence is supported by its analysis of the factors relevant under 18 U.S.C.

量刑得到其对18 U.S.C.

3553(a).

3553(a)相关因素的分析的支持。

原文第 24 页

-14-

ARGUMENT

辩论

THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN ADMITTING EVIDENCE REGARDING THE CO-CONSPIRATOR’S SEXUAL ABUSE OF THE VICTIM

地区法院在采纳关于同谋对受害人性虐待的证据方面没有滥用自由裁量权

“Rule 403 judgments are preeminently the province of the trial courts,”

“403条规则的判断主要是初审法院的职权范围，”

United States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595, 603 (4th Cir. 1998), and are reviewed for

United States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595, 603 (4th Cir. 1998)，并按

abuse of discretion. United States v. Rivera, 412 F.3d 562, 571 (4th Cir. 2005). In

滥用自由裁量权进行审查。United States v. Rivera, 412 F.3d 562, 571 (4th Cir. 2005)。在

conducting its review, this Court “must examine the evidence in the ‘light most

进行审查时，本法院“必须以‘最有利于证据提出者的

favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its

角度审查证据，最大化其证明价值并最小化其

prejudicial effect.’” Love, 134 F.3d at 603 (citation and internal quotations

偏见影响。’”Love, 134 F.3d at 603（引文和内部引语

omitted).

省略）。

This Court “generally favor[s] admissibility, and will find undue prejudice

本法院“通常倾向于可采性，并且只有在存在陪审团情绪被激发至

only if there is a genuine risk that the emotions of a jury will be excited to

非理性行为的真实风险，且该风险与

irrational behavior, and this risk is disproportionate to the probative value of the

所提供证据的证明价值不成比例时，才会认定不当偏见。”

offered evidence.” United States v. Wells, 163 F.3d 889, 896 (4th Cir. 1998)

United States v. Wells, 163 F.3d 889, 896 (4th Cir. 1998)

(citation and internal quotations omitted). Moreover, “[a] district court’s decision

（引文和内部引语省略）。此外，“地区法院在

to admit evidence over a Rule 403 objection will not be overturned except under

面对403条规则异议时采纳证据的决定，除非在

the most extraordinary of circumstances, where that discretion has been plainly

最特殊的情况下，即该自由裁量权被明显

abused.” United States v. Williams, 445 F.3d 724, 732 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal

滥用，否则不会被推翻。”United States v. Williams, 445 F.3d 724, 732 (4th Cir. 2006)（内部

原文第 25 页

-15-

quotations omitted). “Such an abuse occurs only when it can be said that the trial

引语省略）。“这种滥用只有在可以说初审

court acted arbitrarily or irrationally in admitting evidence.” Ibid. (internal

法院在采纳证据时行为任意或非理性时才会发生。”同上（内部

quotations omitted).

引文省略）。

A. The Challenged Evidence Was Properly Admitted

A. 被质疑的证据被适当采纳

In order to prove involuntary servitude, the government was required to

为证明非自愿奴役，政府须

establish the victim was “compelled to work against her will, for the benefit of

证明受害人“通过使用武力、武力威胁或

another person or persons, by the use of force, the threat of force or the threat of

法律强制威胁，被迫违背其意愿为

legal coercion.” J.A. 1047 (jury instruction on involuntary servitude). See also

他人或多人利益而工作。”J.A. 1047（关于非自愿奴役的陪审团指示）。另见

United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 952 (1988). To do so, the government

United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 952 (1988)。为此，政府

had to demonstrate that the victim’s will was overborne.

必须证明受害人的意志被压制。

The evidentiary burden on the government was substantial. “[C]ompulsion

政府的举证责任是重大的。“[C]ompulsion

is an essential element of involuntary servitude under section 1584.” United States

is an essential element of involuntary servitude under section 1584.”United States

v. Alzanki, 54 F.3d 994, 1000 (1st Cir. 1995). “[T]he requisite compulsion * * *

v. Alzanki, 54 F.3d 994, 1000 (1st Cir. 1995)。“[T]he requisite compulsion * * *

obtains when an individual, through an actual or threatened use of physical or legal

coercion, intentionally causes the oppressed person reasonably to believe, given

her ‘special vulnerabilities,’ that she has no alternative but to remain in involuntary

service for a time.” Ibid. “A sustainable conviction * * * therefore requires

service for a time.”Ibid.“A sustainable conviction * * * therefore requires

sufficient evidence to enable a finding, inter alia, that the defendant used or

threatened physical restraint, bodily harm or legal coercion.” Ibid.

threatened physical restraint, bodily harm or legal coercion.”Ibid.

原文第 26 页

-16-

This requires a fact-intensive, individualized inquiry. See Kozminski, 487

这需要进行事实密集型的、个别化的调查。见Kozminski, 487

U.S. at 952 (although definition of involuntary servitude encompasses cases

U.S. at 952（尽管非自愿奴役的定义涵盖涉及对“人身拘束或伤害或法律强制”恐惧的案件，这“并不

involving fear of “physical restraint or injury or legal coercion,” this “does not

意味着其他强制手段的证据、或恶劣工作条件的证据、或

imply that evidence of other means of coercion, or of poor working conditions, or

受害人特殊脆弱性的证据，在非自愿奴役

of the victim’s special vulnerabilities is irrelevant in a prosecution” for involuntary

起诉中无关紧要”）。

servitude). Indeed, “the vulnerabilities of the victim are relevant in determining

事实上，“受害人的脆弱性对于确定

whether the physical or legal coercion or threats thereof could plausibly have

人身或法律强制或其威胁是否可能合理地

compelled the victim to serve.” Ibid.

迫使受害人服劳役具有相关性。”Ibid.

In view of the foregoing, the government was entitled to marshal all

鉴于上述，政府有权汇集所有

available evidence of force and threats of force to convince the jury that the victim

可获得的武力和武力威胁证据，以说服陪审团相信受害人

believed she had no choice but to comply. For this reason, the government

认为自己别无选择只能服从。因此，政府

introduced proof that George Udeozor used rape as a method of controlling the

提出了证据，证明George Udeozor将强奸作为控制

victim and compelling her to work harder, as he threatened to – and did – inflict

受害人并迫使其更努力工作的手段，因为他威胁要——并且确实——

upon the victim rapes that were longer and more severe when the Udeozor children

在Udeozor家的孩子

under her care misbehaved. J.A. 507. It is immaterial that the sexual abuse was

由其照看期间行为不当时，对受害人实施时间更长、更严重的强奸。J.A. 507。性虐待

committed by a co-conspirator, as this Court already has recognized that physical

由一名共谋者实施这一点无关紧要，因为本法院已经认识到，此类案件中

abuse in these types of cases can be a means of furthering the conspiracy to obtain

的身体虐待可以是推进共谋、从受害人处获取

free labor from the victim. See United States v. Bonetti, 277 F.3d 441, 447 (4th

无偿劳动的手段。见United States v. Bonetti, 277 F.3d 441, 447 (4th

Cir. 2002).

Cir. 2002)。

原文第 27 页

-17-

Thus, the challenged evidence of sexual abuse was directly relevant to the

因此，被质疑的性虐待证据与非自愿奴役

involuntary-servitude and conspiracy charges. This is particularly true when

和共谋指控直接相关。尤其考虑到

viewed in light of the fact that the victim had special vulnerabilities; she was a

受害人具有特殊脆弱性这一事实：她是一名

juvenile from an impoverished background who was living in a foreign country

来自贫困背景的未成年人，生活在外国

and completely dependent upon the Udeozors. As the district court held, sexual

并完全依赖Udeozor夫妇。正如地区法院所认定，性

abuse clearly could be considered an act of intimidation used to keep a minor in a

虐待显然可以被视为用于使未成年人处于

condition of servitude. J.A. 64-65, 865. And the district court told defendant’s

奴役状态的恐吓行为。J.A. 64-65, 865。地区法院告知被告的

trial counsel he was free to argue to the contrary. J.A. 865-866 (“It doesn’t

庭审律师，他可以自由地作相反论证。J.A. 865-866（“这并不

preclude you from arguing to the jury that this act shouldn’t be taken into account

妨碍你向陪审团论证，这一行为根本不应被考虑

at all because it had nothing to do with the conspiracy.”).

在内，因为它与共谋无关。”）。

The evidence of sexual abuse also was relevant in another sense. Although

性虐待证据在另一意义上也具有相关性。尽管

defendant does not pursue the issue on appeal, a major thrust of her defense at trial

被告在上诉中未 pursue 该问题，但其庭审辩护的一个主要

was her claim that she believed George Udeozor had adopted the victim, and that

论点是，她相信George Udeozor已收养了受害人，

the victim therefore was the couple’s daughter. J.A. 1975-1979 (closing

因此受害人是这对夫妇的女儿。J.A. 1975-1979（结案

argument). The evidence of sexual abuse – more than any other evidence available

辩论）。性虐待证据——比政府可获得的任何其他证据

to the government – directly undercut this claim. There was no evidence George

都更直接地削弱了这一主张。没有证据表明George

Udeozor sexually abused his children. His sexual abuse of the victim therefore

Udeozor对其子女实施过性虐待。因此，他对受害人的性虐待

was consistent with the government’s assertion that the couple viewed her not as

与政府的断言一致，即这对夫妇不把她视为

an adopted daughter entrusted to their care, but rather as a servant over whom they

托付给他们照料的养女，而是视为他们

原文第 28 页

-18-

exercised complete dominion.

对其行使完全支配权的仆人。

Moreover, with regard to the nature of the evidence, it bears noting that the

此外，关于证据的性质，值得注意的是，

government did not elicit graphic or inflammatory testimony regarding the details

政府并未就强奸的细节引出露骨或煽动性的证词。

of the rapes. And, while defendant now takes issue (Br. 27-30) with the

关于这些强奸行为。而且，尽管被告现在对……提出异议（Br. 27-30）

government’s use of the term “rape” to describe what happened to the victim,

政府使用“强奸”一词描述受害人的遭遇提出异议（Br. 27-30），

defendant’s trial counsel did not object to this characterization, even using the

被告的庭审律师并未对这一表述提出异议，甚至自己

phrase himself. J.A. 734 (in presence of jury); J.A. 860-861 (outside presence of

也使用了该措辞。J.A. 734（陪审团在场）；J.A. 860-861（陪审团

jury). Indeed, trial counsel demurred when given the opportunity to argue the sex

不在场）。事实上，庭审律师在被给予机会论证性行为

was consensual. J.A. 866-867. Thus, even assuming arguendo that the references

是自愿的时候表示异议。J.A. 866-867。因此，即使假定

to rape had a cumulative effect over the course of the trial, as defendant asserts (Br.

（arguendo）对强奸的提及在整个庭审过程中产生了累积效应，如被告所主张（Br.

29-30), the argument that such effect was improper fails both because it was

29-30），关于此种效应不当的论点既失败，因为它已被

waived and because it relies on the benefit of hindsight, which the Supreme Court

放弃，也因为它依赖于事后之明，而最高法院

has instructed is inappropriate in the Rule 403 context. See Old Chief v. United

已指示这在Rule 403语境中是不适当的。见Old Chief v. United

States, 519 U.S. 172, 182 n.6 (1997) (“It is important that a reviewing court

States, 519 U.S. 172, 182 n.6 (1997)（“重要的是，复审法院

evaluate the trial court’s decision from its perspective when it had to rule and not

应从审判法院作出裁决时的视角来评估其决定，而不是

indulge in review by hindsight.”).

沉溺于事后审查。”）。

In view of the foregoing, admission of this evidence was not an abuse of

鉴于上述，采纳该证据并非滥用

discretion. Courts routinely admit evidence of sexual abuse over a Rule 403

自由裁量权。法院经常在Rule 403

objection where, as here, it is probative of a charged offense. See, e.g., United

异议下采纳性虐待证据，只要如本案一样，该证据对指控犯罪具有证明力。见，例如，United

原文第 29 页

-19-

States v. Evans, 272 F.3d 1069, 1083 (8th Cir. 2001) (no abuse of discretion in

States v. Evans, 272 F.3d 1069, 1083 (8th Cir. 2001)（采纳用于“招募、控制和惩戒

admission of evidence of gang rapes used “to recruit, control, and discipline

妓女”的轮奸证据并非滥用自由裁量权）；United States v. Rosario-Diaz, 202 F.3d 54, 71 (1st Cir. 2000)（在劫车案中采纳强奸证据并非

prostitutes”); United States v. Rosario-Diaz, 202 F.3d 54, 71 (1st Cir. 2000) (no

卖淫者”）；United States v. Rosario-Diaz, 202 F.3d 54, 71 (1st Cir. 2000)（无

abuse of discretion in admission of rape evidence in carjacking case where “the

不可分割地交织在一起”）；

rape evidence was inseparably intertwined with the carjacking and murder”);

United States v. Hicks, 103 F.3d 837, 844 (9th Cir. 1996)（采纳“谋杀、强奸和袭击

United States v. Hicks, 103 F.3d 837, 844 (9th Cir. 1996) (no abuse of discretion in

美国诉Hicks案，103 F.3d 837, 844（第9巡回，1996年）（裁量权并无滥用，在

admission of “evidence of murder, rape, and assault” where evidence was

对劫车犯罪具有证明力，并使政府能够“就犯罪实施提供连贯

probative of carjacking offense and allowed the government “to offer a coherent

且可理解的故事”）（内部

and comprehensible story regarding the commission of the crime”) (internal

引文省略）。另见United States v. Oglesbee, 177 Fed. Appx. 359, 361

quotations omitted). See also United States v. Oglesbee, 177 Fed. Appx. 359, 361

引文省略）。另见 United States v. Oglesbee, 177 Fed. Appx. 359, 361

(4th Cir. 2006) (unpublished) (admission of evidence of animal cruelty not abuse

（第4巡回法院 2006年）（未出版）（采纳动物虐待证据不构成滥用

of discretion where it “helped place in context” why the victim submitted to sexual

虐待）。而且，基于上述理由，鉴于政府在

abuse). And, for the reasons discussed above, such evidence is particularly

非自愿奴役案件中的举证责任性质，此类证据在此

probative here given the nature of the government’s evidentiary burden in

尤其具有证明力。

involuntary-servitude cases.

被告的相反论点基于其以下主张：(1)根据本法院在United

Defendant’s argument to the contrary is based on her assertions that (1) the

被告的相反主张基于其以下断言：(1)该

evidence was “unfairly prejudicial,” Br. 30, under this Court’s decision in United

证据“不公平地具有偏见”，Br. 30；(2)其他据称偏见较小的

States v. Ham, 998 F.2d 1247 (4th Cir. 1993); (2) other allegedly less prejudicial

States 诉 Ham，998 F.2d 1247（第4巡回，1993）；(2) 其他据称偏见较小的

evidence served the same purpose, Br. 30; and (3) the sexual abuse was not in

证据起到了相同作用，Br. 30；以及(3)性虐待并非发生在

原文第 30 页

-20-

furtherance of the conspiracy, Br. 27-31. These arguments are without merit.

为推进共谋，Br. 27-31。这些论点没有依据。

1. The Evidence Is Not Unfairly Prejudicial

1. 该证据并非不公平地具有偏见

No evidence, standing alone, is properly labeled “unfairly prejudicial.” See

没有任何证据单独来看可以被恰当地称为“不公平地具有偏见”。见

United States v. Heater, 63 F.3d 311, 321 (4th Cir. 1995) (“‘Unfair prejudice’ does

United States v. Heater, 63 F.3d 311, 321 (4th Cir. 1995)（“‘不公平偏见’

not include within its purview the damage done to a defendant’s case which arises

不包括因证据的合法证明力而对被告案件造成的损害

from the legitimate probative force of the evidence.”) (internal quotations omitted).

在其范围内。”）（内部引文省略）。

Instead, it must be viewed in context. See United States v. Duncan, 598 F.2d 839,

相反，必须结合语境来看待。见United States v. Duncan, 598 F.2d 839,

857 (4th Cir. 1979).

857 (4th Cir. 1979)。

Defendant’s reliance on Ham is misplaced. There, the evidence regarding

被告对Ham的依赖是错误的。在该案中，关于

child molestation was extensive and only marginally probative. The Ham jury

儿童猥亵的证据广泛且仅具有边际证明力。Ham案的陪审团

heard testimony from “[s]everal witnesses” over the course of two days, 998 F.2d

在两天内听取了“[多]名证人”的证词，998 F.2d

at 1252, indicating child molestation was “seemingly rampant in the [defendants’]

at 1252，表明儿童猥亵“[被告]社区中似乎

community.” 998 F.2d at 1253. None of this evidence was probative of an

猖獗”。998 F.2d at 1253。这些证据中没有任何一项对

element of any charged offense in Ham. Instead, it was relevant only to the extent

Ham案中任何指控犯罪的构成要件具有证明力。相反，它仅在

it indirectly provided motive for one of the charges. 998 F.2d at 1253. And, even

间接为其中一项指控提供动机的范围内具有相关性。998 F.2d at 1253。而且，即使

if credible, the challenged evidence in Ham only would have “ma[d]e the motive

可信，Ham案中被质疑的证据也只会“使动机

slightly more likely.” 998 F.2d at 1253.

稍微更有可能”。998 F.2d at 1253。

This case therefore is distinguishable from Ham, and is instead more closely

因此，本案与Ham案可区分，而与第七巡回法院

analogous to the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in United States v. Holt, 460

近期在United States v. Holt, 460案中的判决更为类似

原文第 31 页

-21-

F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2006). In Holt, evidence the defendant had a sexual

F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2006)。在Holt案中，被告与一名证人

relationship with a witness that began when the defendant “was in his mid-thirties”

的性关系始于被告“三十五六岁”而

and the witness “was only 14 or 15 years old,” 460 F.3d at 936, was admitted by

证人“仅14或15岁”时，460 F.3d at 936，该证据被

the district court as relevant to a charge of witness intimidation. Id. at 938. While

地区法院采纳为与证人恐吓指控相关。Id. at 938。尽管

“recogniz[ing] that the prejudicial impact could have been considerable,” the

“承认偏见影响可能相当大”，

Seventh Circuit concluded “[t]he district court did not abuse its discretion in

第七巡回法院认定“[t]he district court did not abuse its discretion in

deeming this evidence relevant to prove an element of the charged crime,” in part

deeming this evidence relevant to prove an element of the charged crime,”部分

because the evidence “provided background for the jury” and “might have helped

因为该证据“为陪审团提供了背景”并“可能有助于

the jury to understand the intimidation charge.” Ibid. In doing so, the panel

陪审团理解恐吓指控。”Ibid.在这样做时，合议庭

emphasized “[t]he kind of prejudice that Rule 403 is designed to address is that

强调“[t]he kind of prejudice that Rule 403 is designed to address is that

which would cause the jury to decide on a basis other than the facts put before it.”

Ibid.

Here, as in Holt, the evidence clearly was probative of a charged offense,

在此，如Holt案一样，该证据显然对指控犯罪具有证明力，

and therefore admissible. As the district court noted,“[i]t is relevant. It may well

因此可采纳。正如地区法院所指出的，“[i]t is relevant. It may well

be inflammatory, but so be it, it’s the nature of the charge. There’s no basis to

exclude it under Rule 403.” J.A. 65. In no way was this ruling “arbitrar[y] or

exclude it under Rule 403.”J.A. 65。鉴于相关事实和指控，该裁定在任何方面都不

irrational[],” Williams, 445 F.3d at 732, in view of the relevant facts and charges.

“arbitrar[y] or irrational[],”Williams, 445 F.3d at 732。

原文第 32 页

-22-

Defendant’s claim of unfair prejudice therefore fails. 6

因此，被告关于不公平偏见的的主张失败。6

2. The Existence Of Allegedly Less Prejudicial Evidence Did Not Preclude Admission Of The Challenged Evidence

2. 据称偏见较小的证据的存在并未阻止采纳被质疑的证据

The existence of other, allegedly less prejudicial evidence regarding the

关于同一点的其他据称偏见较小的证据的存在，

same point did not preclude admission of the challenged evidence. As a

并未阻止采纳被质疑的证据。作为

preliminary matter, this argument was not asserted below, and therefore was

初步事项，该论点未在下级法院提出，因此

waived. See, e.g., United States v. Linwood, 142 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 1998)

已被放弃。见，例如，United States v. Linwood, 142 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 1998)

(“[N]ot just any objection will save an issue for review – neither a general

（“[N]ot just any objection will save an issue for review – neither a general

objection to the evidence nor a specific objection on a ground other than the one

advanced on appeal is enough.”); United States v. Norman T., 129 F.3d 1099, 1106

advanced on appeal is enough.”）；United States v. Norman T., 129 F.3d 1099, 1106

(10th Cir. 1997); Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(1) (objecting party must “stat[e] the specific

(10th Cir. 1997)；Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(1)（异议方必须“stat[e] the specific

ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context”).

异议理由，如果具体理由从上下文中不明显的话”）。

6 Defendant also complains (Br. 29) she was denied a limiting instruction with respect to the issue of sexual abuse, noting one was given in Ham. But denial of a limiting instruction must be viewed in context. A limiting instruction was appropriate in Ham, where evidence of sexual abuse was not probative of any element of a charged offense, but rather was admitted for the limited purpose of establishing motive, as the Ham jury was told in the limiting instruction. Ham, 998 F.2d at 1253. Here, by contrast, the evidence was probative of an element of the crime, and therefore was – as the district court noted in refusing to give a limiting instruction – covered in the general instructions regarding conspiracy and properly resolved by argument of counsel. J.A. 866 (“[I]t’s just evidence that they can argue as part of the conspiracy, and you can say that it isn’t. I mean, I’m going to tell them that an act has to be in furtherance of the conspiracy, and they’ll say it was, and you’ll say it wasn’t, and that’s all that I do. I give fairly spare instructions on that and let counsel argue.”).

6 被告还抱怨（上诉状第29页）她就被性虐待问题被拒绝给予限制性指示，并指出在Ham案中曾给予过此类指示。但拒绝给予限制性指示必须结合背景来看。在Ham案中限制性指示是适当的，因为性虐待证据对任何被指控犯罪的构成要件均不具有证明力，而仅是为确立动机这一有限目的而被采纳，正如Ham案陪审团在限制性指示中所被告知的。Ham, 998 F.2d at 1253。相比之下，在本案中，该证据对犯罪的某一构成要件具有证明力，因此——正如地区法院在拒绝给予限制性指示时所指出的——已被关于共谋的一般指示所涵盖，并可通过律师辩论得到适当处理。J.A. 866（“这只是他们可以作为共谋的一部分进行辩论的证据，你可以说它不是。我的意思是，我会告诉他们某一行为必须是为了促进共谋，他们会说它是，你会说它不是，这就是我所做的全部。我对此给出相当简略的指示，让律师去辩论。”）。

原文第 33 页

-23-

Where an objection was not made on the same ground at trial, review is for plain

若在审判时未基于同一理由提出异议，则按明显错误标准审查。

error. Linwood, 142 F.3d at 422; Norman T., 129 F.3d at 1106.

Linwood, 142 F.3d at 422; Norman T., 129 F.3d at 1106。

Even if not waived, however, the argument fails. It is well established that

然而，即使未被放弃，该论点也不能成立。已确立的规则是，

the government has the “right to detail the full scope of the conspiracy and to

政府有“权详细说明共谋的全部范围并在适当背景下陈述其案件”。

present its case in the proper context.” United States v. Leavis, 853 F.2d 215, 218

United States v. Leavis, 853 F.2d 215, 218

(4th Cir. 1988). See also United States v. Tipton, 90 F.3d 861, 883 (4th Cir. 1996)

（第4巡回法院，1988年）。另见United States v. Tipton, 90 F.3d 861, 883（第4巡回法院，1996年）

(“The Government may not properly be deprived * * * of its right to detail the full

（“不能仅仅因为特定共谋者未参与其活动的全部范围，就适当地剥夺* * *政府详细说明共谋全部范围

scope of the conspiracy and to present its case in proper context simply because

并在适当背景下陈述其案件的权利”）

particular co-conspirators were not involved in the full scope of its activities”)

（引文及内部引语省略）。被告未引用任何案例

(citation and internal quotations omitted). Defendant cites no case in which a

认定地区法院因未要求

district court was held to have abused its discretion by not requiring the

政府仅使用对某一争点具有证明力的最小偏见证据而滥用自由裁量权。

government to use only the least prejudicial evidence probative of a given point.

相反，最高法院已确认，在评估此类

To the contrary, the Supreme Court has recognized that, in evaluating such

事项时，地区法院必须“在评估提出证据一方

matters, district courts must “make these calculations with an appreciation of the

在陈述案件时对证据丰富性和叙事完整性的需要的基础上作出这些计算，

offering party’s need for evidentiary richness and narrative integrity in presenting a

而仅仅两件证据可能指向同一争点这一事实

case, and the mere fact that two pieces of evidence might go to the same point

当然不一定意味着其中只有一件可以进入证据。”Old

would not, of course, necessarily mean that only one of them might come in.” Old

Chief, 519 U.S. at 183。因此，正如法院在Old Chief案中所指出的，在

Chief, 519 U.S. at 183. Thus, as the Court observed in Old Chief, abuse of

首席，519 U.S. 第183页。因此，正如法院在Old Chief案中所观察到的，滥用

discretion in the Rule 403 context “is not satisfied by a mere showing of some

在规则403语境下的自由裁量权“不能仅凭显示存在某些

原文第 34 页

-24-

alternative means of proof that the prosecution in its broad discretion chose not to

依赖的替代证明方式。”519 U.S. at 183 n.7。7 这在非自愿奴役

rely on.” 519 U.S. at 183 n.7. 7 This is especially true in an involuntary servitude

依赖。”519 U.S. 第183页注7。7 在非自愿奴役情形下尤其如此

prosecution, where the government must show that the victim was coerced into

提供服务的。被告的论点因此不能成立。

providing services. Defendant’s argument accordingly fails.

3. 共谋者对受害者的性虐待是为了促进共谋

3. The Co-Conspirator’s Sexual Abuse Of The Victim Was In Furtherance Of The Conspiracy

3. 共谋者对受害人的性虐待是为了推进共谋

Defendant’s argument that George Udeozor’s sexual abuse of the victim was

并非为了促进共谋的论点毫无道理。本法院已在

not in furtherance of the conspiracy has no merit. This Court already resolved this

Bonetti案中解决了这一问题。在该案中，一对夫妻订立共谋“从一名被迫在其家中

issue in Bonetti. There, a husband and wife entered into a conspiracy “to obtain

作为家庭佣工工作的非法外国人处获取

free labor” from an illegal alien forced to work as a domestic servant in their home.

无偿劳动”。Bonetti, 277 F.3d at 447。本法院认定，一方配偶对外国人

Bonetti, 277 F.3d at 447. This Court held that one spouse’s physical abuse of the

Bonetti，277 F.3d 第447页。本法院认定，配偶一方对

alien may “further[] that conspiracy by intimidating [the alien] from asserting her

获得报酬的权利或抵抗[这对夫妻]要求其工作的

right to payment or resisting [the couple’s] demands that she work.” Ibid.

要求，从而促进该共谋。”同上。

Here, the challenged evidence involved sexual abuse. But in both cases the

在本案中，受质疑的证据涉及性虐待。但在两个案件中，

abuse was employed to further the conspiracy by subjugating the victim. As the

虐待均被用来通过征服受害者来促进共谋。正如

district court noted, “clearly it’s an act of subjugation, it’s not very different in the

地区法院所指出的，“这显然是一种征服行为，在本法院看来，

Court’s view from an outright beating.” J.A. 865. The victim testified George

与直接殴打并无太大区别。”J.A. 865。受害者作证称George

7 The Court’s ruling in Old Chief “is limited to cases involving proof of felon status.” 519 U.S. at 183 n.7. But the government respectfully submits the Court’s rationale applies with equal – if not greater – force where, as here, the element in question is more difficult to establish than proof-of-felon status.

7 法院在Old Chief案中的裁决“仅限于涉及证明重罪犯身份的案件。”519 U.S. at 183 n.7。但政府恭敬地认为，法院的理由在同等——如果不是更大——程度上适用于此处，即所涉构成要件比证明重罪犯身份更难确立的情况。

原文第 35 页

-25-

Udeozor threatened to – and did – inflict more severe sexual abuse upon her when

Udeozor威胁——并且确实——在她照看的孩子们

the children under her care misbehaved. J.A. 507. Under these circumstances it

行为不端时对她实施更严重的性虐待。J.A. 507。在此情况下，

does not matter that the charged crimes are, as defendant argues, “unrelated to any

被告所称被指控犯罪“与任何

sex act.” Br. 31.

性行为无关”并不重要。上诉状第31页。

It also does not matter whether defendant knew of the sexual abuse. 8 Indeed,

被告是否知道性虐待也不重要。8 事实上，

it is black-letter law that a defendant need not have knowledge of all of the details

已确立的法律规则是，被告无需知道共谋的

of a conspiracy. United States v. Morsley, 64 F.3d 907, 919 (4th Cir. 1995). This

所有细节。United States v. Morsley, 64 F.3d 907, 919（第4巡回法院，1995年）。

argument therefore fails as well.

因此该论点同样不能成立。

B. Any Error In Admitting The Challenged Evidence Was Harmless

B. 采纳受质疑证据的任何错误均属无害

“Evidentiary rulings are subject to review for harmless error.” United States

“证据裁定按无害错误标准审查。”United States

v. Weaver, 282 F.3d 302, 313 (4th Cir. 2002). “[I]n the realm of nonconstitutional

v. Weaver, 282 F.3d 302, 313（第4巡回法院，2002年）。“[在]非宪法性

error, the appropriate test of harmlessness * * * is whether [this Court] can say

错误领域，无害性的适当检验标准* * *是[本法院]能否

with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the

在思考所发生的一切、不将错误行为从整体中剥离之后，有合理把握地

erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed

说判决未因该错误而受到实质性

by the error.” United States v. Williams, 41 F.3d 192, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1994)

影响。”United States v. Williams, 41 F.3d 192, 199-200（第4巡回法院，1994年）

(internal quotations omitted). Even if the district court should not have admitted

（内部引语省略）。即使地区法院不应采纳

the challenged evidence, any error was harmless.

受质疑的证据，任何错误均属无害。

8 The government does not concede defendant was entirely unaware of the sexual abuse. Defendant’s former driver testified he overheard a conversation in which defendant expressed suspicion about this issue. J.A. 853-854, 912-913.

8 政府不承认被告完全不知道性虐待。被告的前司机作证称他无意中听到一段对话，其中被告对此问题表达了怀疑。J.A. 853-854, 912-913。

原文第 36 页

-26-

1. Defendant Was Acquitted On The Charge To Which The Challenged Evidence Was Most Relevant

1. 被告就受质疑证据最具相关性的指控被宣告无罪

That the judgment in this case was not substantially swayed by evidence of

本案判决未因性虐待证据而受到实质性影响，

sexual abuse is best illustrated by the verdict itself. The jury acquitted defendant

最好由裁决本身来说明。陪审团就实质性非自愿奴役指控

on the substantive involuntary-servitude charge, J.A. 2117, the charge as to which

宣告被告无罪，J.A. 2117，而该指控正是

the challenged evidence was most directly relevant. Courts routinely take

受质疑证据最直接相关的指控。法院通常会在

acquittals into account in weighing the harm of potential error. See United States

权衡潜在错误的损害时考虑无罪判决。见United States

v. Wooten, 688 F.2d 941, 947 (4th Cir. 1982) (any error in failing to give requested

v. Wooten, 688 F.2d 941, 947（第4巡回法院，1982年）（未给予所请求

instruction was harmless where defendant was acquitted of relevant charge). See

指示的任何错误均属无害，因被告就相关指控被宣告无罪）。见

also Holt, 460 F.3d at 938 (any error in admission of evidence regarding

另见Holt, 460 F.3d at 938（采纳关于

defendant’s sexual relationship with minor was harmless in light of acquittal on the

被告与未成年人性关系的证据的任何错误均属无害，鉴于被告就

charge to which the evidence was relevant); United States v. Masters, 924 F.2d

该证据相关的指控被宣告无罪）；United States v. Masters, 924 F.2d

1362, 1368 (7th Cir. 1991) (any error in limiting cross-examination was harmless

1362, 1368（第7巡回法院，1991年）（限制交叉询问的任何错误均属无害，

because “it went to a charge * * * on which the defendants were acquitted”).

因为“它涉及一项* * *被告被宣告无罪的指控”）。

Accordingly, defendant’s argument that the alleged error was not harmless fails on

因此，被告关于所称错误并非无害的论点仅基于

this basis alone.

此理由即不能成立。

2. The Evidence Against Defendant Was Overwhelming

2. 针对被告的证据是压倒性的

At its core, this case is simple: the Udeozors used their status and means to

本案的核心很简单：Udeozor夫妇利用其身份和财力

take advantage of a family with few resources, promising to legally bring their

占了一个资源匮乏家庭的便宜，承诺合法将其

daughter to America, provide an education, and send money back to Nigeria. They

女儿带到美国、提供教育并向尼日利亚汇款。他们

原文第 37 页

-27-

did none of these things. Instead, the Udeozors held the victim out of school, made

这些事一件也没做。相反，Udeozor夫妇不让受害者上学，

her work long hours in their home and office without pay, and abused her when she

让她在其家中和办公室长时间无薪工作，并在她

failed to meet their expectations. These facts came through easily in the victim’s

未能达到其期望时虐待她。这些事实在受害者的

testimony, the bulk of which was not about sexual abuse and was corroborated by

证词中轻易得到呈现，其大部分内容并非关于性虐待，并得到了

other witnesses. 9

其他证人的佐证。9

The victim testified that the agreement between her father and the Udeozors

受害者作证称，她父亲与Udeozor夫妇之间的协议

was that she would go to school and her family would be paid for her work. J.A.

是她去上学，其家庭因其工作获得报酬。J.A.

427-428; J.A. 196-197, 200 (corroborating testimony). Despite this agreement, the

427-428; J.A. 196-197, 200（佐证证词）。尽管有此协议，

victim never attended school while living in defendant’s home. J.A. 566; J.A. 369,

受害者在被告家中居住期间从未上过学。J.A. 566; J.A. 369,

837, 1114 (corroborating testimony). Nor was she tutored. J.A. 470, 567; J.A.

837, 1114（佐证证词）。她也未接受辅导。J.A. 470, 567; J.A.

413, 846, 1220, 1406 (corroborating testimony).

413, 846, 1220, 1406（佐证证词）。

Instead of going to school, she was forced to spend her days working for

她没有去上学，而是被迫每天为

defendant. J.A. 457-461, 580, 583; J.A. 353-364, 821-823, 828-829,1406-1407

被告工作。J.A. 457-461, 580, 583; J.A. 353-364, 821-823, 828-829,1406-1407

(corroborating testimony). She did so without assistance from defendant’s

（佐证证词）。她这样做时没有得到被告

children. J.A. 498, 659; J.A. 367 (corroborating testimony). And this workload

子女的协助。J.A. 498, 659; J.A. 367（佐证证词）。而且当被告和George Udeozor的母亲

did not substantially change when defendant’s and George Udeozor’s mothers

来访时，这一工作量并未实质性改变。

came to visit. J.A. 468-469; J.A. 412-413, 836-837 (corroborating testimony).

J.A. 468-469; J.A. 412-413, 836-837（佐证证词）。

9 As defendant concedes, if found credible, the victim’s testimony provided “sufficient evidence of force” separate and apart from the evidence of sexual abuse. Br. 30.

9 正如被告所承认的，若被认定可信，受害者的证词提供了 “充分的武力证据”，独立于性虐待证据之外。上诉状第30页。

原文第 38 页

-28-

The victim explained defendant abused her verbally, J.A. 474-475; J.A. 839,

受害者解释说被告在言语上虐待她，J.A. 474-475; J.A. 839,

1408-1409 (corroborating testimony), and physically. J.A. 476-477 & 482-495;

1408-1409（佐证证词），并在身体上虐待她。J.A. 476-477 & 482-495;

J.A. 847-851, 1409 (testimony by other witnesses regarding the victim’s

J.A. 847-851, 1409（其他证人关于受害者

contemporaneous statements about the physical abuse). And defendant instilled in

当时就身体虐待所作陈述的证词）。被告还向

the victim a fear of America in general and of police in particular, warning her she

受害者灌输了总体上对美国的恐惧，特别是对警察的恐惧，警告她

would be killed or deported if she attempted to leave the Udeozor home. J.A. 496-

如果她试图离开Udeozor家就会被杀死或被驱逐出境。J.A. 496-

497, 560.

497, 560。

Unlike the Udeozor children, J.A. 565, the victim had no friends other than

与Udeozor家的孩子们不同，J.A. 565，受害者除了

members of the Udeozor family and related acquaintances. J.A. 554-555, 770; J.A.

Udeozor家庭成员及相关熟人外没有朋友。J.A. 554-555, 770; J.A.

368, 872, 1133, 1173 (corroborating testimony). And she did not leave the home

368, 872, 1133, 1173（佐证证词）。而且她从未

by herself. J.A. 555; J.A. 872 (corroborating testimony)

独自离开过家。J.A. 555; J.A. 872（佐证证词）

This evidence was more than ample to establish a conviction for

这些证据足以确立非自愿奴役共谋和

involuntary-servitude conspiracy and alien harboring, without regard to any

窝藏外国人的定罪，无论是否有任何

evidence of sexual assault.

性侵犯证据。

3. Defendant’s Theory Of The Case Was Weak

3. 被告的案件理论薄弱

The strength of the government’s case stands in sharp contrast to that of the

政府案件的强度与辩方形成鲜明对比。

defense. Indeed, defendant’s trial strategy amounted to little more than attempting

事实上，被告的审判策略不过是试图

to smear the victim by (1) suggesting her goal was to sue defendant, J.A. 713; and

抹黑受害者：（1）暗示她的目标是起诉被告，J.A. 713；以及

(2) portraying her as a freeloader who spent much of her time sitting around the

（2）将她描绘成一个吃白食的人，大部分时间坐在

原文第 39 页

-29-

Udeozors’ home watching soap operas and other television programs, J.A. 1577-

Udeozor家中看肥皂剧和其他电视节目，J.A. 1577-

1585, 1590, 1681-1690 (testimony of defendant’s oldest daughter); J.A. 1790-1795

1585, 1590, 1681-1690（被告长女的证词）；J.A. 1790-1795

(testimony of defendant’s oldest son). As noted above, these assertions were flatly

（被告长子的证词）。如上所述，这些主张被

contradicted by unequivocal testimony from disinterested witness who were not

与受害者或被告无关、且在本案结果中无利害关系的无利害关系证人的

related to the victim or defendant and had no stake in the outcome of this case.

明确证词所直接反驳。

Simply stated, defendant’s trial strategy failed at the most basic level

简言之，被告的审判策略在最基本的层面上失败了，

because it offered no plausible benign explanation for the victim’s presence in

因为它未能为受害者出现在

defendant’s home. It strains credulity to suggest the Udeozors smuggled the victim

被告人的住所。提出Udeozor夫妇将受害人非法偷运入境

into the country illegally, held her out of school for five years, and instructed her to

让她失学五年，并指示她就其与Udeozor夫妇的关系以及她不在学校的理由

lie about her relationship to the Udeozors and her reasons for not being in school

撒谎，以便她可以整天在他们家中闲坐看电视，而他们

so she could lounge around their home all day watching television while they were

在上班、他们的子女由定期来访的客人照看，这种说法令人难以置信。简言之，

at work and their children were cared for by periodic house guests. In short,

被告人的案件理论不合情理，本会被

defendant’s theory of the case was implausible and would have been rejected by

任何理性的陪审团驳回，无论是否有性虐待的证据。

any reasonable jury, with or without the evidence of sexual abuse.

-30-

原文第 40 页

-30-

ADMISSION OF RECORDED CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN A CO- CONSPIRATOR AND THE VICTIM DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS

采纳共谋者与受害人之间录音对话未侵犯被告人的第六修正案权利

This Court exercises de novo review over alleged violations of the

本法院对据称违反

Confrontation Clause. United States v. Rivera, 412 F.3d 562, 566 (4th Cir. 2005).

对质条款的行为进行de novo审查。United States v. Rivera, 412 F.3d 562, 566 (4th Cir. 2005)。

This review is subject to harmless error analysis. United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d

该审查适用无害错误分析。United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d

477, 496 (4th Cir. 2006). Other evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of

477, 496 (4th Cir. 2006)。其他证据裁定按滥用

discretion. United States v. Perkins, 470 F.3d 150, 155 (4th Cir. 2006).

裁量权标准审查。United States v. Perkins, 470 F.3d 150, 155 (4th Cir. 2006)。

A. The Challenged Evidence Was Properly Admitted

A. 受质疑的证据被适当采纳

Defendant argues that the district court erred in admitting recorded

被告人主张，地区法院采纳其共谋者与受害人之间的录音

conversations between her co-conspirator and the victim because the recordings (1)

对话有误，因为录音(1)

were testimonial, Br. 32-36; and (2) contained statements by George Udeozor that

属于证言性质，Br. 32-36；且(2)包含George Udeozor关于

were exculpatory as to the use of force, Br. 39-43. Neither argument is persuasive.

使用武力的开脱性陈述，Br. 39-43。两项主张均不具说服力。

1. The Co-Conspirator Statements Contained In The Recordings Are Not Testimonial

1. 录音中包含的共谋者陈述不具证言性质

Defendant argues that the challenged statements were testimonial, and

被告人主张，受质疑的陈述具有证言性质，

therefore their admission into evidence violated her Sixth Amendment rights. The

因此将其采纳为证据侵犯了她的第六修正案权利。这些

statements were not testimonial.

陈述不具证言性质。

Defendant’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Crawford v.

被告人援引最高法院在Crawford v.

Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and Davis v. Washington, 126 S. Ct. 2266

Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)和Davis v. Washington, 126 S. Ct. 2266

(2006), is misplaced. Defendant correctly notes (Br. 33) that Crawford left “for

(2006)中的判决，属援引不当。被告人正确地指出(Br. 33)，Crawford将“详细阐明‘证言’综合定义的努力留待

原文第 41 页

-31-

another day any effort to spell out a comprehensive definition of ‘testimonial.’”

另一日”。

541 U.S. at 68. But, as the circuit courts that have addressed this issue have held,

541 U.S. at 68。但是，正如处理该问题的各巡回法院所认定的，

Crawford made clear that evidence could not be considered testimonial unless, at

Crawford明确表示，除非

the very least, the declarant was aware or could reasonably expect that his or her

至少陈述人知道或可以合理预期其

statements might later be used at trial. See, e.g., United States v. Ellis, 460 F.3d

陈述日后可能在审判中被使用，否则证据不能被视为证言性质。参见，例如，United States v. Ellis, 460 F.3d

920, 925 (7th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he courts of appeals have taken to defining

920, 925 (7th Cir. 2006)（“[各]上诉法院已开始以

testimonial in terms of whether the declarant reasonably expected the statement to

陈述人是否合理预期该陈述将被用于检察目的来界定

be used prosecutorially.”) (citing cases); United States v. Hinton, 423 F.3d 355,

证言性质。”）（引用案例）；United States v. Hinton, 423 F.3d 355,

360 (3d Cir. 2005) (“[S]tatements made under circumstances that would lead an

360 (3d Cir. 2005)（“在会使

objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for

客观证人合理相信该陈述可供

use at a later trial are testimonial.”); United States v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223, 228 (2d

日后审判使用的情形下作出的陈述具有证言性质。”）；United States v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223, 228 (2d

Cir. 2004) (“Crawford at least suggests that the determinative factor in determining

Cir. 2004)（“Crawford至少表明，确定

whether a declarant bears testimony is the declarant’s awareness or expectation that

陈述人是否作证的决定性因素是陈述人是否知道或预期

his or her statements may later be used at trial.”). This Court has taken a similar

其陈述日后可能在审判中被使用。”）。本法院采取了类似

approach, albeit in an unpublished opinion. United States v. Canady, 139 Fed.

进路，尽管是在一份未公布的判决中。United States v. Canady, 139 Fed.

Appx. 499, 500-501 (4th Cir. 2005). Thus, even under the broadest reading of

Appx. 499, 500-501 (4th Cir. 2005)。因此，即使按照

Crawford, statements made by a witness who does not reasonably believe or

Crawford最宽泛的解读，证人若不合理相信或

原文第 42 页

-32-

expect them to be used at trial clearly are not testimonial. 10

预期其陈述将在审判中被使用，其陈述显然不具证言性质。10

Applying this widely-accepted understanding of Crawford here, a reasonable

在此适用这一被广泛接受的Crawford理解，处于George

person in George Udeozor’s position would not expect his statements to be used in

Udeozor地位的理性人不会预期其陈述会在

the context of a criminal prosecution. Had he believed they would, George

刑事起诉的语境中被使用。如果George

Udeozor certainly would have denied any sexual contact or other illegal behavior,

Udeozor相信它们会被使用，他肯定会否认任何性接触或其他违法行为，

or, at a minimum, simply refused to talk about such issues.

或者至少会直接拒绝谈论此类问题。

Instead, George Udeozor specifically asks near the outset of the first call

相反，George Udeozor在第一次通话接近开始时特别询问

whether the victim is alone, and is told she is. J.A. 2096 (Udeozor: “I, I worry (In

受害人是否独自一人，并被告知她是独自一人。J.A. 2096（Udeozor：“我，我担心（用

10 The Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Davis does not alter this analysis. As a preliminary matter, the ruling in Davis is limited to statements made in the context of police interrogation, see United States v. Townley, 472 F.3d 1267, 1272 (10th Cir. 2007) (discussing Davis), and therefore is not controlling here. But even so understood, the limited holding in Davis is sufficient to demonstrate its consistency with the decisions cited above. Davis holds that statements made in the interrogation context aimed at enabling police to respond to an ongoing emergency are not testimonial, while statements unrelated to an ongoing emergency and made during an interrogation – the primary purpose of which “is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution” – are testimonial. Davis, 126 S. Ct. at 2273- 2274. This ruling is consistent with decisions holding that evidence is testimonial when a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would expect his or her statement to be used in a criminal investigation or prosecution. That is, a reasonable declarant likely would not expect statements made to enable police to respond to an ongoing emergency to be used in such fashion, while those made during a police interrogation aimed at later prosecution obviously would be. Thus, as at least one circuit has noted, the ruling in Davis – rather than undercutting the above-described interpretation of Crawford – actually “lends credence” to it. Townley, 472 F.3d at 1272.

10 最高法院随后在Davis中的判决不改变这一分析。作为初步事项，Davis的裁定限于警方讯问语境下作出的陈述，参见United States v. Townley, 472 F.3d 1267, 1272 (10th Cir. 2007)（讨论Davis），因此在此不具控制力。但即使如此理解，Davis中的有限裁定也足以表明其与上述所引判决一致。 Davis裁定，在讯问语境下旨在使警方能够应对正在发生的紧急情况而作出的陈述不具证言性质，而与正在发生的紧急情况无关且在讯问期间作出的陈述—— 讯问的主要目的“是确立或证明可能与日后刑事起诉相关的过往事件”——则具有证言性质。Davis, 126 S. Ct. at 2273- 2274。该裁定与以下判决一致：当处于陈述人地位的理性人会预期其陈述将被用于刑事调查或起诉时，证据即具有证言性质。也就是说，理性的陈述人不太可能预期为使警方能够应对正在发生的紧急情况而作出的陈述会以这种方式被使用，而在旨在日后起诉的警方讯问期间作出的陈述显然会被如此使用。因此，正如至少一个巡回法院所指出的，Davis中的裁定——非但没有削弱上述对Crawford的解释——实际上“为其提供了佐证”。 Townley, 472 F.3d at 1272。

原文第 43 页

-33-

Igbo – you are alone by yourself?) because I want to ask you some sp . . . specific

Igbo语——你是一个人独自一人吗？）因为我想问你一些具……具体的

questions.” [The victim]: “Yeah.”). He also asks at the outset of both calls where

问题。”[受害人]：“是的。”）。他还在两次通话开始时都询问

the victim is, and is told she is at a pay phone. J.A. 2095, 2101. He then converses

受害人在哪里，并被告知她在公用电话处。J.A. 2095, 2101。随后他与

with her about, inter alia, (1) how he is “concerned for [his] own self” since the

她交谈，内容除其他外包括：(1)自警方

police picked her up, J.A. 2096; (2) how he brought her into the country, including

将她带走后他如何“担心[他]自己”，J.A. 2096；(2)他如何将她带入该国，包括

admitting he used his daughter’s passport, J.A. 2096; (3) his need to retain counsel,

承认他使用了他女儿的护照，J.A. 2096；(3)他需要聘请律师，

J.A. 2096; (4) his need to know what she told authorities so he can make sure his

J.A. 2096；(4)他需要知道她向当局说了什么，以便他能确保他的

story matches hers, J.A. 2096; (5) whether the authorities are looking for him, J.A.

说法与她的相符，J.A. 2096；(5)当局是否在找他，J.A.

2097-2099; (6) whether she made any accusations about being beaten, J.A. 2098-

2097-2099；(6)她是否提出过关于被打的指控，J.A. 2098-

2099; and (7) the fact he had sex with her, J.A. 2098, 2102-2106, 2108-2109. And

2099；以及(7)他与她发生过性关系的事实，J.A. 2098, 2102-2106, 2108-2109。而且

he instructs her at the end of the second call to keep things between the two of

他在第二次通话结束时指示她将事情保留在他们两人

them. J.A. 2109 (“And please, [victim], the things that happened between you and

之间。J.A. 2109（“还有，请，[受害人]，你和我之间

I, keep in, keep, keep them between you and I.”). These are not statements a

发生的事，保留，保留，保留在你和我之间。”）。这些不是

reasonable person makes if he or she believes they will be used in the context of a

理性人在相信其将被用于

criminal prosecution.

刑事起诉语境时会作出的陈述。

Moreover, contrary to defendant’s assertion, the government did not use the

此外，与被告人的主张相反，政府并未利用

victim “in lieu of an investigator, to ask questions or elicit responses to establish

受害人“代替调查人员，提出问题或引出回答以确立

whether criminal conduct had occurred.” Br. 35. Rather, as the victim testified, no

是否发生了犯罪行为。”Br. 35。相反，正如受害人所证，没有

one told her what to say and she was free to end the calls if she felt uncomfortable.

人告诉她该说什么，如果她感到不适，她可以自由结束通话。

原文第 44 页

-34-

J.A. 644. 11

J.A. 644。11

Thus, this case is analogous to those in which courts have held that

因此，本案与以下案件类似：法院在这些案件中认定

statements made to government informants are not testimonial under Crawford.

向政府线人作出的陈述根据Crawford不具证言性质。

For example, in Saget the declarant’s “statements were elicited by an agent of law

例如，在Saget中，陈述人的“陈述是由执法

enforcement officials,” but “without [the declarant’s] knowledge, and not in the

官员的代理人引出的”，但“在[陈述人]不知情的情况下，且不在

context of the structured environment of formal interrogation.” Saget, 377 F.3d at

正式讯问的结构化环境语境中”。Saget, 377 F.3d at

228. As in the cases cited above, the panel in Saget read Crawford as

228。如上述所引案件，Saget合议庭将Crawford解读为

“suggest[ing] that the Court would use the reasonable expectation of the declarant

“表明[法院]将以陈述人的合理预期

as the anchor of a more concrete definition of testimony.” Id. at 229. It concluded

作为更具体的证言定义之锚”。Id. at 229。它认定

the declarant’s statements were not testimonial, basing this holding in part on

陈述人的陈述不具证言性质，部分依据

Crawford’s citation of the Supreme Court’s prior decision in Bourjaily v. United

Crawford对最高法院先前在Bourjaily v. United

States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987). As here, Bourjaily involved statements made

States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987)中判决的引用。如本案一样，Bourjaily涉及

unwittingly to a government informant. As the Saget court noted, the Supreme

在不知情情况下向政府线人作出的陈述。正如Saget法院所指出的，最高法院

Court cited Bourjaily approvingly “as an example of a case in which

赞同地引用了Bourjaily，“作为一案的例子，其中

11 The government’s involvement in the production of these statements does not bear on the question whether they are testimonial at any rate. Defendant’s assertion to the contrary (Br. 33, 35) misreads Crawford. The Crawford Court’s footnote regarding the “potential for prosecutorial abuse,” 541 U.S. at 56 n.7 – upon which defendant relies – was a response to an assertion made in a concurring opinion regarding whether the Confrontation Clause requires exclusion of admittedly testimonial statements. 541 U.S. at 71-74 (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring). It was not part of the Court’s discussion of what falls within the definition of “testimonial.”

11 政府参与这些陈述的制作，无论如何不影响它们是否具有证言性质的问题。被告人相反的主张（Br. 33, 35）误读了Crawford。Crawford法院关于“检察滥权可能性”的脚注，541 U.S. at 56 n.7—— 被告人所依赖者——是对一份协同意见中关于对质条款是否要求排除明显具有证言性质的陈述所提主张的回应。541 U.S. at 71-74 (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring)。它不属于法院关于何种内容落入“证言性质” 定义的讨论。

原文第 45 页

-35-

nontestimonial statements were correctly admitted against the defendant without a

非证言性陈述被正确地采纳用于对抗被告人，而无需

prior opportunity for cross-examination.” Saget, 377 F.3d at 229 (citing Crawford,

事先的交叉询问机会。”Saget, 377 F.3d at 229（引用Crawford,

124 S. Ct. at 1367). The Saget court therefore held “a declarant’s statements to a

124 S. Ct. at 1367）。因此，Saget法院认定“陈述人向

confidential informant, whose true status is unknown to the declarant, do not

其真实身份不为陈述人所知的秘密线人作出的陈述，不

constitute testimony within the meaning of Crawford,” and such statements

构成Crawford意义上的证言”，此类陈述

accordingly are admissible. Id. at 229-230. Other courts have reached similar

因此可以采纳。Id. at 229-230。其他法院得出了类似

conclusions. See, e.g., United States v. Hendricks, 395 F.3d 173, 183-184 (3d Cir.

结论。参见，例如，United States v. Hendricks, 395 F.3d 173, 183-184 (3d Cir.

2005) (concluding, based largely on Crawford’s citation of Bourjaily, that

2005)（主要基于Crawford对Bourjaily的引用，认定

statements made to a confidential informant are not testimonial); Canady, 139 Fed.

向秘密线人作出的陈述不具证言性质）；Canady, 139 Fed.

Appx. at 501 (unpublished) (same).

Appx. at 501（未公布）（同）。

Like the declarant in Saget, George Udeozor had no knowledge his

如同Saget中的陈述人，George Udeozor不知道他的

statements were being monitored by law enforcement officials. Defendant’s trial

陈述正被执法官员监听。被告人的审判

counsel admitted as much during closing argument. J.A. 1979. And the statements

律师在结案陈词中承认了这一点。J.A. 1979。而且这些陈述

were not made in the context of formal interrogation. Accordingly, the statements

并非在正式讯问的语境中作出。因此，这些陈述

were not testimonial. See Saget, 377 F.3d at 228; Hendricks, 395 F.3d at 183-184.

不具证言性质。参见Saget, 377 F.3d at 228；Hendricks, 395 F.3d at 183-184。

原文第 46 页

-36-

2. The Challenged Statements Are Not Exculpatory

2. 受质疑的陈述不具开脱性质

Defendant next contends (Br. 39-43) the statements made by George

被告人接下来主张（Br. 39-43），George

Udeozor in the challenged recordings are not against interest, and therefore do not

Udeozor在受质疑录音中作出的陈述并非不利于己，因此不

fall within the hearsay exception contained in Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3).

属于《联邦证据规则》804(b)(3)所载传闻例外。

Specifically, defendant asserts that (1) the only inculpatory statements contained in

具体而言，被告人主张：(1)录音中唯一的有罪陈述

the recordings relate to George Udeozor smuggling the victim into the country, Br.

涉及George Udeozor将受害人偷运入境，Br.

40-41; and (2) George Udeozor’s recorded statements deny improper or forcible

40-41；且(2)George Udeozor的录音陈述否认与受害人

sexual relations with the victim, Br. 41-43. This Court reviews decisions regarding

有不正当或强制的性关系，Br. 41-43。本法院按滥用裁量权标准审查

the admissibility of evidence under Rule 804(b)(3) for abuse of discretion. United

关于规则804(b)(3)下证据可采性的裁定。United

States v. Lowe, 65 F.3d 1137, 1145 (4th Cir. 1995).

States v. Lowe, 65 F.3d 1137, 1145 (4th Cir. 1995)。

Although defendant objected to the admission of the recordings below, trial

尽管被告在一审中对录音的采纳提出了异议，但庭审

counsel never argued the statements were not sufficiently inculpatory. J.A. 54-63;

律师从未主张这些陈述不具有充分的归罪性。J.A. 54-63；

see also Defendant’s Opp’n to United States’ Mot. to Admit Evidence of Abuse

另见《被告对美国政府关于采纳虐待证据动议的反对意见》

(Dist. Ct. Docket No. 52). Accordingly, the argument that George Udeozor’s

（地区法院案卷号52）。因此，关于George Udeozor

statements as to the use of force were exculpatory was not properly preserved and

就使用武力所作的陈述具有开脱性的主张未被适当保留，

thus fails on this basis alone. Linwood, 142 F.3d at 422; Norman T., 129 F.3d at

故仅凭此理由即不能成立。Linwood, 142 F.3d at 422；Norman T., 129 F.3d at

1106. Even if this argument were properly preserved, however, it would fail.

1106。然而，即使该主张被适当保留，它也不能成立。

Defendant’s assertion that George Udeozor’s recorded statements do not

被告声称George Udeozor的录音陈述不

satisfy the requirements of Rule 804(b)(3) because he denies raping the victim –

符合规则804(b)(3)的要求，因为他否认强奸了被害人——

原文第 47 页

-37-

and instead implies the sex was consensual – is wholly without support. Rule

而是暗示性行为是双方同意的——这一主张完全缺乏支持。规则

804(b)(3) provides for admission of “[a] statement which was at the time of its

804(b)(3)规定可采纳“[a] statement which was at the time of its

making so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far

tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability * * * that a reasonable

person in the declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless

believing it to be true.” Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3). Defendant’s argument (Br. 43) is

believing it to be true.”《联邦证据规则》804(b)(3)。被告的论点（Br. 43）

based on the assumption George Udeozor’s recorded statements are inadmissible

基于如下假设：George Udeozor的录音陈述根据该规定不可采纳，

under this provision unless he admits to the complete crime of rape (i.e., both (1)

除非他承认完整的强奸罪（即同时承认(1)

sex, and (2) use of force or knowledge the victim was below the age of consent).

性行为，以及(2)使用武力或明知被害人未达同意年龄）。

Rule 804(b)(3) is not so narrow. Rather, “whether a statement is self-

规则804(b)(3)并非如此狭窄。相反，“whether a statement is self-

inculpatory or not can only be determined by viewing it in context.” Williamson v.

inculpatory or not can only be determined by viewing it in context.”Williamson v.

United States, 512 U.S. 594, 603 (1994). And “[e]ven statements that are on their

United States, 512 U.S. 594, 603 (1994)。而且“[e]ven statements that are on their

face neutral may actually be against the declarant’s interest.” Ibid. Accordingly,

face neutral may actually be against the declarant’s interest.”同上。因此，

statements that fall short of admitting a completed crime – or even a given element

未达到承认已完成犯罪——甚至未达到承认某一特定犯罪要件——的

of a crime – are admissible under Rule 804(b)(3) if a reasonable person would not

犯罪——如果理性人不会，则根据规则804(b)(3)可予采纳

make them under the circumstances unless true. See Williamson, 512 U.S. at 603-

则根据规则804(b)(3)可以采纳。见Williamson, 512 U.S. at 603-

604 (statements about hiding a gun at someone’s apartment or going to someone’s

604（关于将枪支藏在某人公寓或前往某人

house might be against interest, as might other statements providing details of a

家中的陈述可能违背其利益，提供犯罪细节的其他陈述

crime). See also id. at 606 (Scalia, J., concurring) (“A statement obviously can be

也可能如此）。另见同上at 606（Scalia大法官协同意见）（“A statement obviously can be

原文第 48 页

-38-

self-inculpatory * * * without consisting of the confession ‘I committed X element

of crime Y.’”).

of crime Y.’”）。

Here, George Udeozor admitted having sex with a minor he smuggled into

在本案中，George Udeozor承认与一名未成年人发生性关系，他

the country illegally to live in his home and care for his children. There is no

将该未成年人非法偷运入境，居住在其家中并照看其子女。这一基本事实

getting around this fundamental fact, and no way to parse George Udeozor’s

无法回避，也无法对George Udeozor的

recorded statements so as to render these admissions exculpatory. That George

录音陈述进行解读从而将这些供认视为具有开脱性。George

Udeozor denied forcing himself on the victim means only that he did not admit to

Udeozor否认强行对被害人实施性行为，这仅意味着他未承认

the completed crime of rape. It does not change the fact he admitted a key element

已完成的强奸罪。这并不改变他承认了强奸罪

of the crime of rape (i.e., sex with the minor victim), which unquestionably was so

关键要件（即与未成年被害人发生性关系）这一事实，该承认无疑如此

contrary to his interests a reasonable person in his position would not have made it

违背其利益，以至于处于其地位的理性人若非相信其为真实

if not true. This is all Rule 804(b)(3) requires. 12

便不会作出。这正是规则804(b)(3)所要求的全部内容。12

B. Any Error In Admitting The Recordings Was Harmless

B. 采纳录音中的任何错误均属无害

This Court need not reach the merits of defendant’s Sixth Amendment

如果本法院认定任何潜在错误均属无害，则无需审理被告第六修正案

arguments if it concludes any potential error was harmless. See United States v.

主张的实体问题。见United States v.

Khan, 461 F.3d 477, 496 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Iskander, 407 F.3d 232,

Khan, 461 F.3d 477, 496 (4th Cir. 2006)；United States v. Iskander, 407 F.3d 232,

240 (4th Cir. 2005). The government bears a slightly higher burden in

240 (4th Cir. 2005)。政府在

12 In addition to Rule 804(b)(3), the government also sought to have the challenged recordings admitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 807. J.A. 47. The district court did not reach this argument, J.A. 47-48, but this Court “can affirm a trial court’s opinion on different grounds than those employed by the trial court.” United States v. Dorsey, 45 F.3d 809, 814 (4th Cir. 1995).

12 除规则804(b)(3)外，政府还寻求依据《联邦证据规则》807采纳受到质疑的录音。J.A. 47。地区法院未审理该论点，J.A. 47-48，但本法院“can affirm a trial court’s opinion on different grounds than those employed by the trial court.”United States v. Dorsey, 45 F.3d 809, 814 (4th Cir. 1995)。

原文第 49 页

-39-

demonstrating harmless error in the context of alleged constitutional violations.

在指控违反宪法的情况下证明无害错误时承担略高的举证责任。

It must demonstrate “beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have

它必须证明“beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have

found the defendant guilty absent the error.” Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1,

found the defendant guilty absent the error.”Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1,

18 (1999). See also United States v. Rodriguez, 94 Fed. Appx. 139, 142 (4th Cir.

18 (1999)。另见United States v. Rodriguez, 94 Fed. Appx. 139, 142 (4th Cir.

2004) (unpublished) (citing standards for both constitutional and nonconstitutional

2004)（未出版）（引用了宪法错误和非宪法错误

error).

的标准）。

In the interest of brevity, the government incorporates by reference the

为简明起见，政府以引用方式纳入上文第I(B)节中提出的

harmless error argument made in Section I(B) above and asserts that, for the

无害错误论点，并主张，基于

reasons stated therein, any Sixth Amendment error was harmless beyond a

其中所述理由，任何第六修正案错误均属排除合理怀疑

reasonable doubt.

的无害错误。

III

THE DISTRICT COURT’S USE OF SPECIAL FINDINGS WAS PROPER

地区法院使用特别认定是适当的

The government agrees with defendant that the proper standard of review for

政府同意被告的观点，即对地区法院在被告反对的情况下使用特别认定

a district court’s use of special findings over a defendant’s objection is abuse of

的适当审查标准是滥用

discretion. Br. 44 (citing cases). 13 Defendant asserts use of special findings was

自由裁量权。Br. 44（引用案例）。13 被告主张在此使用特别认定

improper here because (1) the district court included the special findings as a

不当，因为(1)地区法院将特别认定作为

13 Although the abuse-of-discretion standard generally is applicable to determinations regarding use of special findings, as explained in Sections III(B) and III(C) below, defendant’s second and third arguments regarding this issue are subject to plain-error review.

13 尽管滥用自由裁量权标准通常适用于关于使用特别认定的裁定，但如下文第III(B)节和第III(C)节所述，被告关于此问题的第二和第三项论点适用明显错误审查。

原文第 50 页

-40-

second portion of the same verdict form used to determine guilt or innocence, as

用于判定有罪或无罪的同一裁决表的第二部分，而非

opposed to having the jury first determine whether defendant is guilty and then

让陪审团先判定被告是否有罪，然后再

sending the jury back with a separate form to address special findings, Br. 47; (2)

将陪审团送回以单独的表格处理特别认定，Br. 47；(2)

the district court did not require the jury to specify which object (or objects) of the

地区法院未要求陪审团就多重

conspiracy served as the basis for its finding of guilt with respect to the multi-

客体共谋罪名的有罪认定指明作为依据的共谋客体

object conspiracy count, Br. 47-48; and (3) material given to the jury during

（或若干客体），Br. 47-48；以及(3)在评议期间提供给陪审团的

deliberations included a statement indicating the grand jury already had found the

材料中包含一项陈述，表明大陪审团已认定

existence of the special factors charged in this case, Br. 48-49. Each argument

本案所控特别因素的存在，Br. 48-49。每项论点

fails.

均不能成立。

A. The Special Verdict Form Was Proper

A. 特别裁决表是适当的

The special findings in this case were submitted to the jury as part of a two-

本案中的特别认定作为两页

page verdict form. J.A. 2117-2118. The first page asked the jury to determine

裁决表的一部分提交给陪审团。J.A. 2117-2118。第一页要求陪审团就三项指控罪名中的

guilt or innocence on each of three charged counts. J.A. 2117. The second page

每一项判定有罪或无罪。J.A. 2117。第二页

then asked the jury to answer “yes” or “no” questions with respect to three special

则要求陪审团就三项特别

findings. J.A. 2118. The district court instructed the jury – both in its formal

认定回答“是”或“否”问题。J.A. 2118。地区法院在其正式

instructions, J.A. 1920-1921, and in the verdict form itself, J.A. 2118 – not to

指示中（J.A. 1920-1921）以及裁决表本身中（J.A. 2118）均指示陪审团，除非

consider the special findings unless it first found defendant guilty. The jury is

首先认定被告有罪，否则不得考虑特别认定。推定陪审团

presumed to have followed these instructions. United States v. Ellis, 121 F.3d 908,

遵循了这些指示。United States v. Ellis, 121 F.3d 908,

921 (4th Cir. 1997).

921 (4th Cir. 1997)。

原文第 51 页

-41-

Significantly, defendant cites no cases holding this approach amounts to

值得注意的是，被告未引用任何判例认定这种做法构成

abuse of discretion. Instead, defendant’s argument is grounded on (1) the general

滥用自由裁量权。相反，被告的论点基于(1)特别

notion that special verdicts are discouraged in criminal cases, Br. 44-46; and (2)

裁决在刑事案件中不受鼓励的一般观念，Br. 44-46；以及(2)

citation to cases in which her preferred approach was followed, Br. 47. Neither

引用采用其所倾向做法的判例，Br. 47。二者均

supports the weight of defendant’s argument.

不能支持被告论点的分量。

First, it is true special verdicts traditionally were discouraged in criminal

首先，特别裁决传统上在刑事案件中确实不受鼓励。

cases. “Over the course of the last two decades, however, ‘[e]xceptions to the

“然而，在过去二十年中，‘对刑事案件中不鼓励特别裁决的

general rule disfavoring special verdicts in criminal cases have been expanded and

一般规则的例外已被扩大，并在越来越多

approved in an increasing number of circumstances.’” United States v. Stonefish,

的情形中获得认可。’”United States v. Stonefish,

402 F.3d 691, 698 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Reed, 147 F.3d 1178,

402 F.3d 691, 698 (6th Cir. 2005)（引用United States v. Reed, 147 F.3d 1178,

1180 (9th Cir. 1998)). And case law “make[s] it clear that use of a special verdict

1180 (9th Cir. 1998)）。判例法“make[s] it clear that use of a special verdict

form is a matter of the district court’s discretion to be determined on the facts of

each case.” Reed, 147 F.3d at 1181 (citing cases).

each case.”Reed, 147 F.3d at 1181（引用案例）。

Defendant’s trial occurred in October and November 2004, shortly after the

被告的审判发生于2004年10月和11月，即最高法院

Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), but

在Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004)案判决之后不久，但在

before its decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). As this Court

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)案判决之前。正如本法院

has observed, “in the uncertainty between Blakely and Booker, it was reasonable to

所指出的，“in the uncertainty between Blakely and Booker, it was reasonable to

assume that enhancements, other than prior conviction enhancements, had to be

pled in the indictment and the facts supporting those enhancements found by the

原文第 52 页

-42-

jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Robinson, 2007 WL 98110, at

jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”United States v. Robinson, 2007 WL 98110, at

*2 (4th Cir. 2007) (unpublished). See also United States v. Wallace, 461 F.3d 15,

*2 (4th Cir. 2007)（未出版）。另见United States v. Wallace, 461 F.3d 15,

21 n.2 (1st Cir. 2006); United States v. Beal, 430 F.3d 950, 953-954 (8th Cir.

21 n.2 (1st Cir. 2006)；United States v. Beal, 430 F.3d 950, 953-954 (8th Cir.

2005). Thus, historical disfavor of special verdicts – already waning – properly

2005)。因此，鉴于被告审判时的法律状况，历史上对特别裁决的不鼓励——本已

was set aside given the state of the law at the time of defendant’s trial.

日渐减弱——被适当地搁置。

Second, and more importantly, defendant provides no case law to support

其次，更重要的是，被告未提供任何判例法支持

her claim the jury must first return a guilty verdict and then be sent back to

其主张，即陪审团必须先作出有罪裁决，然后被送回

deliberate with regard to special factors. Rather, defendant simply cites cases in

就特别因素进行评议。相反，被告仅引用法院

which courts used two separate verdict forms and contends the same approach

使用两份单独裁决表的判例，并主张本应遵循

should have been followed here. Br. 47. But the fact other district courts handled

同样的做法。Br. 47。但其他地区法院以这种方式处理

similar situations in such a manner does not establish it is an abuse of discretion

类似情形的事实，并不能证明不这样做即构成滥用

not to do so. In fact, applicable case law points to the opposite conclusion.

自由裁量权。事实上，适用的判例法指向相反的结论。

The Third Circuit recently rejected a nearly identical argument. In United

第三巡回法院最近驳回了几乎相同的论点。在United

States v. Hedgepeth, 434 F.3d 609 (3d Cir. 2006), the panel noted that while

States v. Hedgepeth, 434 F.3d 609 (3d Cir. 2006)案中，合议庭指出，虽然

special interrogatories used for sentencing purposes must be submitted after a

用于量刑目的的特别询问必须在作出

guilty verdict is returned, this requirement is satisfied “when jurors are instructed

有罪裁决后提交，但“when jurors are instructed

on a single form to answer the special interrogatory only after filling out a verdict

of guilty or not guilty.” 434 F.3d at 613 & n.2.

of guilty or not guilty.”即满足了这一要求。434 F.3d at 613 & n.2。

As in this case, the verdict form in Hedgepeth “was structured so that the

与本案一样，Hedgepeth案的裁决表“was structured so that the

原文第 53 页

-43-

jury was first instructed to determine whether [defendant] was guilty of possession

of a firearm by a felon and only then move to consideration of the special

findings,” thereby alleviating the potential prejudice. Id. at 613 & n.3. The court

findings,”从而减轻了潜在偏见。同上at 613 & n.3。法院

concluded “[t]he danger of prejudice to [defendant] was thus alleviated, as we

认定“[t]he danger of prejudice to [defendant] was thus alleviated, as we

cannot say that the jury was led step-by-step to a guilty verdict when the special

findings followed the guilt determination.” Id. at 613. And “[a]lthough an

findings followed the guilt determination.”同上at 613。而且“[a]lthough an

argument could be made that the jurors could have looked down the page at the

special findings before rendering a guilty verdict, [the court of appeals] must

assume that the jury understood and followed the court’s instructions.” Id. at 614

assume that the jury understood and followed the court’s instructions.”同上at 614

n.4 (citation and internal quotations omitted). Other courts have reached similar

n.4（引用及内部引文省略）。其他法院也得出了类似

conclusions. See, e.g., United States v. Console, 13 F.3d 641, 663 (3d Cir. 1993);

结论。见，例如，United States v. Console, 13 F.3d 641, 663 (3d Cir. 1993)；

United States v. Adams, 2007 WL 4209, at *1-*2 (10th Cir. 2007) (unpublished).

United States v. Adams, 2007 WL 4209, at *1-*2 (10th Cir. 2007)（未出版）。

The position taken in these cases is sensible. There is no substantive

这些判例所采取的立场是合理的。陪审团先作出

difference between a jury that reaches a finding of guilt and then moves on to the

有罪认定然后继续处理

second page of a verdict form to determine the existence of special factors, and one

裁决表第二页用于判定是否存在特殊因素，以及一份

that returns a finding of guilt only to be handed a new piece of paper and told to

仅返回有罪认定，却被交给一张新纸并被要求

deliberate with regard to special factors. Certainly there is not enough of a

就特殊因素进行评议的裁决表。当然，两者之间并没有足够大的

difference to say a district court that chooses the former over the latter abuses its

差异，以至于可以说选择前者而非后者的地区法院滥用其

discretion, particularly where, as here, the jury was instructed not to consider the

自由裁量权，特别是在本案这种情况下，陪审团被指示不得考虑

原文第 54 页

-44-

special factors unless it first determined guilt. Defendant’s argument to the

特殊因素，除非其首先判定有罪。被告相反的

contrary simply elevates form over substance, and therefore fails.

论点不过是重形式而轻实质，因此不能成立。

B. The Jury Specified The Object Of The Conspiracy

B. 陪审团明确了共谋的客体

Defendant’s second argument regarding the use of special findings – that the

被告关于使用特殊认定的第二个论点——即

district court failed to instruct the jury to determine defendant’s guilt regarding

地区法院未能指示陪审团就共谋的

each object of the conspiracy, Br. 47-48 – is not altogether clear. Defendant cites

每一客体判定被告有罪，Br. 47-48——并不完全清楚。被告将

this failure as one of three enumerated problems with the district court’s use of

这一失败列为地区法院使用特殊认定所存在的三项列举问题之一，

special findings, but does not specify what harm allegedly resulted from this failure

但并未具体说明这一失败据称造成了何种损害，

or cite any case law, thereby making it difficult for the government to respond.

也未援引任何判例法，从而使政府难以回应。

The government nevertheless notes the following with respect to this issue.

尽管如此，政府就这一问题指出以下内容。

First, defendant failed to request such an instruction. Review of this issue

第一，被告未请求作出此类指示。因此，对该问题的

accordingly is for plain error. United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 217 n.4 (4th

审查适用明显错误标准。United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 217 n.4 (4th

Cir. 2006).

Cir. 2006)。

Second, it is clear the jury unanimously found that the government

第二，陪审团一致认定政府

established the most serious object of the conspiracy – involuntary servitude –

以排除合理怀疑的标准证明了共谋最严重的客体——非自愿奴役——

beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury was told both in the court’s instructions and

这一点是明确的。陪审团在法院的指示和

in the verdict form not to answer the special interrogatories regarding involuntary

裁决表中均被告知，不得回答关于非自愿

servitude unless it first (1) found defendant guilty of the substantive involuntary-

奴役的特殊询问，除非其首先(1)认定被告犯有实质性非自愿

servitude charge, or (2) found defendant guilty of conspiracy and unanimously

奴役罪，或(2)认定被告犯有共谋罪并一致

原文第 55 页

-45-

concluded an object of the conspiracy was to hold the victim in involuntary

认定共谋的某一客体是将受害人置于非自愿

servitude. J.A. 1920, 2118. The jury acquitted defendant on the substantive

奴役状态。J.A. 1920, 2118。陪审团就实质性

involuntary-servitude charge, J.A. 2117, but proceeded to answer the special

非自愿奴役罪判决被告无罪，J.A. 2117，但随后回答了关于非自愿奴役的

interrogatories regarding involuntary servitude. J.A. 2118. Thus, assuming – as

特殊询问。J.A. 2118。因此，假设——正如

we must – the jury followed the court’s instructions, Ellis, 121 F.3d at 921, it only

我们必须假设的那样——陪审团遵循了法院的指示，Ellis, 121 F.3d at 921，其只有

could have reached the special findings regarding involuntary servitude by

在认定共谋的某一客体是将受害人置于非自愿

concluding one object of the conspiracy was to hold the victim in involuntary

奴役状态的情况下，才可能得出关于非自愿奴役的

servitude.

特殊认定。

Third, to the extent defendant contends the failure to require the jury to

第三，就被告主张未要求陪审团

determine the existence of other objects of the conspiracy constitutes error, this

判定共谋其他客体的存在构成错误而言，该

argument fails. It is well settled that guilty verdicts in multiple-object conspiracy

论点不能成立。多项客体共谋案件中，只要

cases are valid provided any single object is established. See United States v.

确立任何单一客体，有罪裁决即为有效，这一点已确立。参见 United States v.

Bolden, 325 F.3d 471, 492 (4th Cir. 2003); United States v. Wells, 163 F.3d 889,

898 (4th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, the district court committed no error – let alone

898 (4th Cir. 1998)。因此，地区法院未要求陪审团就共谋的每一

plain error – in not requiring the jury to determine defendant’s guilt regarding each

客体判定被告有罪，并未犯错——更不用说

object of the conspiracy. 14

明显错误。14

14 Defendant’s assertion that the district court should have expressly asked the jury to make findings with regard to each object of the conspiracy (Br. 47-48) is odd in view of her complaints regarding the alleged complexity of the special verdict form (Br. 44-47). The district court arguably employed the most efficient (continued...)

14 被告主张地区法院应当明确要求陪审团就共谋的每一客体作出认定（Br. 47-48），鉴于其关于特殊裁决表据称过于复杂的抱怨（Br. 44-47），这一主张颇为奇怪。可以说，地区法院采用了在情况下最有效率的裁决表 (续...)

原文第 56 页

-46-

C. Inclusion Of The Challenged Language In The Indictment Given To The Jury Was Not Plain Error

C. 将受质疑的措辞纳入交给陪审团的起诉书不构成明显错误

Defendant’s final argument regarding special findings fares no better. Citing

被告关于特殊认定的最后论点同样不能成立。被告援引

pages 22-25 and 1919 of the joint appendix, defendant claims “a second copy of

联合附录第22-25页和第1919页，声称“特殊认定的第二份副本”

the Special Findings” was “attached” to the second superseding indictment and

被“附在”第二份替代起诉书之后并

given to the jury. Br. 48. Because the preamble to the special findings states that

交给了陪审团。Br. 48。由于特殊认定的前言称

the grand jury found them as facts, Defendant asserts “prejudicial evidence” not

大陪审团将其作为事实予以认定，被告主张未在庭审中出示的“ prejudicial evidence”

introduced at trial came before the jury. Br. 48. Defendant contends a new trial

进入了陪审团视野。Br. 48。被告主张因此

therefore is required in accordance with this Court’s decision in United States v.

需要根据本法院在 United States v.

Lentz, 383 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2004). This argument is incorrect.

Lentz, 383 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2004)中的判决进行重新审判。该论点不正确。

The government assumes defendant is referring to the language contained in

政府假定被告指的是联合附录第28页第一行所载的措辞，

the first line of page 28 of the joint appendix, which matches the language quoted

共同附录第28页的第1行，与所引用的语言相符

on page 48 of defendant’s brief. 15 But this page was not “attached” to the second

在被告书状第48页。15 但该页并未“附于”第二

14(...continued) verdict form possible under the circumstances, in that it obtained the information necessary to perform its sentencing function without cluttering the verdict form with additional questions. Defendant cannot have it both ways, and should not be heard to argue both that the verdict form was too complex and that it was not specific enough.

14（……续）在当时情况下可能的裁决书格式，因为其获得了履行量刑职能所必需的信息，而没有用额外问题使裁决书格式变得杂乱。被告不能两头都占，也不应被听取同时主张裁决书格式过于复杂和不够具体。

15 Pages 22-25 of the joint appendix are simply the first four pages of the second superseding indictment. The challenged language regarding the grand jury’s findings does not appear on these pages. Nor does it appear on page 1919 of the joint appendix, the other page cited by defendant. (continued...)

15 联合附录第22-25页只是第二份替代起诉书的前四页。关于大陪审团认定的受质疑措辞并未出现在这些页面上。也未出现在被告援引的另一页联合附录第1919页上。 (续...)

原文第 57 页

-47-

superseding indictment, as defendant claims. Page 28 of the joint appendix is part

替代起诉书之后，如被告所称。联合附录第28页是第二份

of the second superseding indictment, as evidenced by the fact it is paginated

替代起诉书的一部分，这可由其页码编排方式证明

accordingly (i.e., it is labeled page “7” and is in fact the seventh page of the

（即，该页标注为第“7”页，且实际上是起诉书的第七页），

indictment) and contains the signatures of the United States Attorney and grand

并且该页底部载有美国联邦检察官和大陪审团

jury foreperson at the bottom of the page. J.A. 28. 16

主席的签名。J.A. 28。16

Lentz, the case upon which defendant relies, involved a situation in which

被告所依赖的Lentz案涉及的情形是，

the district court accused the prosecution of deliberately sending excluded physical

地区法院指控控方故意将已排除的实物

evidence – a murder victim’s day planners – into the jury room. 383 F.3d at 206.

证据——一名谋杀受害人的日程记事本——送入陪审团评议室。383 F.3d at 206。

This Court’s ruling in Lentz accordingly is limited to cases in which prejudicial

因此，本法院在Lentz案中的裁决仅限于 prejudicial

evidence improperly comes before a jury. See Lentz, 383 F.3d at 219.

证据不当进入陪审团视野的案件。参见 Lentz, 383 F.3d at 219。

It is black-letter law, however, that indictments are not evidence. See United

然而，起诉书不是证据，这是公认的法律原则。参见 United

States v. Short, 671 F.2d 178, 183 (6th Cir. 1982). And defendant’s jury was

States v. Short, 671 F.2d 178, 183 (6th Cir. 1982)。被告的陪审团

instructed on this point no fewer than three times. J.A. 1868, 1870. It also was

就此点被指示了不少于三次。J.A. 1868, 1870。陪审团还被

instructed to “base [its] decision solely upon the evidence developed at trial or the

指示“仅依据庭审中形成的证据或

15(...continued)

15(...续)

16 To the extent there is any doubt the special factors were part of the second superseding indictment, the government respectfully refers the Court to the transcript of defendant’s arraignment on the second superseding indictment, in which the district court specifically cited page 7 and noted the special findings. See Sept. 13, 2004 Tr. at 73-75. While not included in the joint appendix, this portion of the record may be relied upon by the Court. Fed. R. App. P. 30(a)(2).

16 若对特殊因素是否属于第二份替代起诉书的一部分存有任何疑问，政府谨请法院参阅被告就第二份替代起诉书接受传讯的笔录，其中地区法院特别援引了第7页并提及特殊认定。参见 Sept. 13, 2004 Tr. at 73-75。虽然未包含在联合附录中，但法院可以依赖记录的这一部分。Fed. R. App. P. 30(a)(2)。

原文第 58 页

-48-

lack of evidence.” J.A. 1867. And it was told “[t]he defendant begins the trial * *

证据缺失”作出“[其]决定”。J.A. 1867。陪审团还被告知“[被]告在审判开始* *

* with a clean slate.” J.A. 1869. The jury is presumed to have followed these

*时是一张白纸。”J.A. 1869。推定陪审团遵循了这些

instructions. Ellis, 121 F.3d at 921.

指示。Ellis, 121 F.3d at 921。

Defendant did not move, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

被告未依据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》

7(d), to have the challenged language redacted. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d) (“Upon

7(d)提出动议，要求删除受质疑的措辞。参见 Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d)（“经

the defendant’s motion, the court may strike surplusage from the indictment or

被告动议，法院可以从起诉书或

information.”). Nor did she object to the content of the second superseding

起诉状中删除多余内容。”）。她也未对第二份替代

indictment, or to its being given to the jury during deliberations. 17 Plain-error

起诉书的内容提出异议，或对其在评议期间交给陪审团提出异议。17 因此，适用明显错误

review therefore is appropriate. United States v. Schuler, 458 F.3d 1148, 1153

审查。United States v. Schuler, 458 F.3d 1148, 1153

(10th Cir. 2006).

(10th Cir. 2006)。

No error – plain or otherwise – occurred here. See United States v. Ramirez,

本案未发生任何错误——无论是明显错误还是其他错误。参见 United States v. Ramirez,

710 F.2d 535, 545 (9th Cir. 1983). In Ramirez, the defendant brought a Rule 7(d)

710 F.2d 535, 545 (9th Cir. 1983)。在Ramirez案中，被告提出Rule 7(d)

motion seeking to have the district court delete from the indictment the phrases “a

动议，要求地区法院从起诉书中删除“a

true bill” and “the Grand Jury charges,” along with the signatures of the grand jury

true bill”和“the Grand Jury charges”等短语，以及大陪审团

foreperson and the United States Attorney. 710 F.2d at 545. Similar to this case,

主席和美国联邦检察官的签名。710 F.2d at 545。与本案类似，

the argument in Ramirez was “that this language prejudiced [the defendant] by

Ramirez案中的论点是“该措辞通过

17 Indeed, defendant’s trial counsel was alerted to the possibility of redacting information before sending the indictment to the jury when the district court asked whether George Udeozor’s name should first be removed from the indictment, and trial counsel indicated he had no objection to the indictment being sent to the jury with George Udeozor’s name included. J.A. 1840-1841.

17 事实上，当地区法院询问是否应首先从起诉书中删除George Udeozor的名字时，被告的庭审律师已被提醒在将起诉书送交陪审团之前删除信息的可能性，庭审律师表示他不反对将包含George Udeozor名字的起诉书送交陪审团。J.A. 1840-1841。

原文第 59 页

-49-

telling the jury in effect that a higher jury, the grand jury, has found the facts in the

实际上告诉陪审团，一个更高级的陪审团，即大陪审团，已认定起诉书中的

indictment to be true and that the United States Attorney concurs in that opinion.”

事实为真，且美国联邦检察官同意该意见，从而使[被告]受到偏见。”

Ibid. The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument as “frivolous,” ruling the district

同上。第9巡回法院驳回了这一论点，认为其“轻率”，裁定在陪审团

court’s refusal to strike the language was not error where the jury was instructed

于审判开始和结束时均被告知起诉书不是证据且

both at the beginning and end of the trial that the indictment was not evidence and

“不提供任何有罪或无罪的推断”的情况下，地区法院拒绝删除该措辞

“afford[ed] no inference of guilt or innocence.” Ibid. See also United States v.

并无错误。同上。另参见 United States v.

Solina, 733 F.2d 1208, 1214 (7th Cir. 1984) (concluding the phrase “a true bill”

Solina, 733 F.2d 1208, 1214 (7th Cir. 1984)（认定“a true bill”一语

should have been removed, but failure to do so did not warrant reversal).

本应删除，但未删除并不 warrant 撤销）。

Accordingly, there is no basis for concluding the challenged language was

因此，没有依据认定受质疑的措辞对被告

prejudicial to defendant, and certainly no basis for finding plain error. See United

具有偏见，当然也没有依据认定明显错误。参见 United

States v. Coward, 669 F.2d 180, 184 (4th Cir. 1982) (district court’s repeated

States v. Coward, 669 F.2d 180, 184 (4th Cir. 1982)（地区法院反复

admonitions that indictment is not evidence “effectively offset any hypothetical

告诫起诉书不是证据，“有效抵消了陪审团收到未经编辑的起诉书所产生的任何假设性

prejudice resulting from the jury’s receipt of the unedited indictment”); see also

偏见”）；另参见

United States v. Marshall, 985 F.2d 901, 906 (7th Cir. 1993); Lowther v. United

States, 455 F.2d 657, 666-667 (10th Cir. 1972). 18 Defendant’s argument therefore

States, 455 F.2d 657, 666-667 (10th Cir. 1972)。18 因此，被告的论点

18 The same analysis would hold true even if Lentz applied to this case. Under Lentz, the standard for determining whether evidence is prejudicial – and therefore warrants a new trial – “is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the jury’s verdict was influenced by the material that improperly came before it.” 383 F.3d at 219. Putting aside the fact that the indictment is not evidence and was not improperly placed before the jury, the challenged language could not have (continued...)

18 即使Lentz案适用于本案，同样的分析也成立。根据Lentz案，判定证据是否具有偏见——因而 warrant 重新审判——的标准是“陪审团的裁决是否合理可能受到不当出现在其面前的材料的影響。”383 F.3d at 219。撇开起诉书不是证据且未被不当置于陪审团面前这一事实，受质疑的措辞也不可能 (续...)

原文第 60 页

-50-

fails.

不能成立。

DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE IS REASONABLE

被告的刑罚是合理的

In reviewing a sentence for reasonableness, this court reviews legal

在审查刑罚的合理性时，本法院对法律

questions de novo and factual findings for clear error. United States v. Moreland,

问题重新审查，对事实认定适用明显错误标准。United States v. Moreland,

437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir. 2006). “[A] sentence within a properly calculated

437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir. 2006)。“[在]正确计算的

advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable,” and may be rebutted only

咨询性《量刑指南》范围内的刑罚被推定为合理”，且只能

“by demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the [18

“通过证明该刑罚在对照[18

U.S.C. 3553(a)] factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th

U.S.C. 3553(a)]因素衡量时不合理”予以反驳。United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th

Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotations omitted).

Cir. 2006)（引文及内部引号省略）。

Defendant asserts her sentence was (1) substantively unreasonable because

被告主张其刑罚(1)在实质上不合理，因为

the district court based it on the jury’s special finding that involuntary servitude

地区法院依据陪审团关于非自愿奴役的特别裁定作出该判决

was the object of the conspiracy, Br. 51-55; and (2) procedurally unreasonable

是共谋的目的，Br. 51-55；以及（2）程序上不合理

because the court made factual findings that precluded a downward adjustment

因为法院作出的事实认定排除了下调

based on defendant’s role in the offense, Br. 56-60. Both arguments fail.

基于被告在犯罪中的角色，Br. 56-60。两项论点均不成立。

A. Defendant’s Sentence Is Substantively Reasonable

A. 被告的刑罚在实质上合理

Defendant’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence is

被告对刑罚实质合理性的质疑

18(...continued) influenced the jury in light of the above-cited instructions from the district court. Accordingly, even under Lentz defendant would not be entitled to a new trial.

18（……续）鉴于地区法院的上述指示影响了陪审团。因此，即使依据Lentz案，被告也无权获得重新审判。

原文第 61 页

-51-

based primarily on her claims that (1) the jury was not required to unanimously

主要基于其主张：（1）陪审团无须一致

identify the object of the conspiracy, and (2) the jury could not have found

认定共谋的目的，以及（2）陪审团不可能认定

involuntary servitude to be the object of the conspiracy because it acquitted her of

非自愿奴役是共谋的目的，因为陪审团宣告她

the substantive involuntary-servitude offense. Br. 51-53. Neither of these

实质非自愿奴役罪名不成立。Br. 51-53。这两项

assertions is legally or factually correct. As a result, defendant’s challenge to the

主张在法律上和事实上均不正确。因此，被告对

substance of her sentence should be rejected.

其刑罚实质的质疑应予驳回。

First, there is no doubt that the jury identified the object of the conspiracy to

首先，毫无疑问陪审团认定共谋的目的

be involuntary servitude. Under Section 2X1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, the

为非自愿奴役。根据《量刑指南》第2X1.1条，

base offense level for the underlying substantive offense that was the object of the

作为共谋目的的 underlying 实质罪名的基准犯罪等级

conspiracy is used in calculating the base offense level for the conspiracy charge.

用于计算共谋指控的基准犯罪等级。

Here, there were three potential objects of the conspiracy: involuntary servitude, in

在此，共谋有三个潜在目的：非自愿奴役，

violation of 18 U.S.C. 1584; harboring a juvenile alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

违反18 U.S.C. 1584；窝藏未成年外国人，违反8 U.S.C.

1324(a)(1)(A)(iii); and inducing a juvenile alien to enter and reside in this country,

1324(a)(1)(A)(iii)；以及引诱未成年外国人进入并居留于本国，

in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv). J.A. 22-23. The applicable guideline

违反8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)。J.A. 22-23。非自愿奴役

for involuntary servitude is Section 2H4.1, which provides for a base offense level

适用的指南为第2H4.1条，其规定的基准犯罪等级

of 22. The applicable guideline for both of the other potential objects of the

为22。共谋其他两个潜在目的

conspiracy is Section 2L1.1, which provides for a base offense level of 12.

适用的指南均为第2L1.1条，其规定的基准犯罪等级为12。

Accordingly, with regard to the object(s) of the conspiracy, only one issue needed

因此，就共谋的目的而言，只需解决

to be resolved: whether the object of the conspiracy was involuntary servitude. If

一个问题：共谋的目的是否为非自愿奴役。如果

原文第 62 页

-52-

it was, defendant’s base offense level would be 22. If not, the guideline for the

是，被告的基准犯罪等级将为22。如果不是，则适用

immigration offenses would apply, placing defendant’s base offense level at 12.

移民罪行的指南，将被告的基准犯罪等级定为12。

As previously noted, supra at 44-45, the jury twice was told not to answer

如前所述，supra at 44-45，陪审团两次被告知不要回答

the special interrogatories regarding involuntary servitude unless it first (1) found

关于非自愿奴役的特别讯问，除非其首先（1）认定

defendant guilty of the substantive involuntary-servitude charge, or (2) found

被告实质非自愿奴役罪名成立，或（2）认定

defendant guilty of conspiracy and unanimously concluded an object of the

被告共谋罪名成立并一致认定共谋的

conspiracy was to hold the victim in involuntary servitude. J.A. 1920, 2118.

目的之一是使受害人处于非自愿奴役状态。J.A. 1920, 2118。

Because the jury acquitted defendant on the substantive involuntary-servitude

由于陪审团宣告被告实质非自愿奴役

charge, J.A. 2117, but proceeded to answer the special interrogatories regarding

罪名不成立，J.A. 2117，但继续回答了关于

involuntary servitude, J.A. 2118, it is clear that it unanimously found involuntary

非自愿奴役的特别讯问，J.A. 2118，显然其一致认定非自愿

servitude to be the object of the conspiracy. The district court recognized this at

奴役是共谋的目的。地区法院在量刑时

sentencing. J.A. 2158 (“[I]n looking at the special findings the Court’s read is that

认识到了这一点。J.A. 2158（“在审视特别裁定时，本院的解读是

the defendant was in the minds of the jury guilty of, among other things,

在陪审团看来，被告除其他事项外，

conspiracy that included among it’s [sic] objects the involuntary servitude.”). This

共谋罪名成立，其目的包括非自愿奴役。”）。这一

fact distinguishes this case from both cases relied upon by defendant. See United

事实将本案与被告所依赖的两个案件区分开来。见United

States v. Rhynes, 206 F.3d 349, 380 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. Quicksey, 525

F.2d 337, 340-341 (4th Cir. 1975).

F.2d 337, 340-341 (4th Cir. 1975)。

Second, there is no inconsistency between the jury’s acquittal of defendant

其次，陪审团宣告被告实质非自愿奴役

on the substantive charge of involuntary servitude and its finding involuntary

罪名不成立与其认定非自愿

原文第 63 页

-53-

servitude was an object of the conspiracy. The two charges have different

奴役是共谋的目的之间并无不一致。两项指控具有不同的

elements, and courts routinely uphold sentences under such circumstances. See,

要件，法院在此类情形下通常维持刑罚。见，

e.g., United States v. Jackson, 167 F.3d 1280, 1285 (9th Cir. 1999); United States

例如，United States v. Jackson, 167 F.3d 1280, 1285 (9th Cir. 1999); United States

v. Ross, 131 F.3d 970, 989 (11th Cir. 1997) (rejecting as “contrary to well

v. Ross, 131 F.3d 970, 989 (11th Cir. 1997)（驳回被告关于实质罪名不成立

established law” defendant’s contention that acquittal on substantive count

即排除在共谋指控量刑时使用该罪行适用指南的主张，

precluded use of the applicable guideline for that offense in sentencing on

认为其“与既定法律相悖”）。19

conspiracy charge). 19

共谋指控）。19

And even if the verdict were irreconcilably inconsistent, it is well

确立陪审团裁决不得以不一致为由

established that jury verdicts are not subject to challenge on the ground of

受到质疑。United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 65 (1984)。另见United

inconsistency. United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 65 (1984). See also United

不一致。United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 65 (1984)。另见United

States v. Thomas, 900 F.2d 37, 40 (4th Cir. 1990). If defendant truly believed the

States v. Thomas, 900 F.2d 37, 40 (4th Cir. 1990)。如果被告确实相信

verdict was inconsistent and the acquittal on the substantive involuntary-servitude

罪名不成立——而非认定非自愿奴役是共谋

charge – as opposed to the finding that involuntary servitude was an object of the

的目的——代表了陪审团在该问题上的“真实”感受，那么适当的

conspiracy – represented the jury’s “true” feelings on the issue, the appropriate

19 被告就同一基本论点提出了其他变体，

19 Defendant asserts additional variations of the same basic argument regarding the alleged inconsistency between the jury’s acquittal on the substantive involuntary-servitude charge and its finding involuntary servitude was an object of the conspiracy. Br. 53 (use of allegedly contradictory special findings “negated the acquittal” on the substantive charge); ibid. (special findings gave prosecution “second bite at the apple of conviction”) ibid. (various steps should be taken if acquittal on substantive count is contradicted by special findings). All fail for the reasons discussed above.

19 被告就陪审团对实质性非自愿奴役指控的无罪裁决与其认定非自愿奴役是共谋目标之一的裁定之间所称的不一致，提出了同一基本论点的其他变体。Br. 53（使用所称相互矛盾的特殊裁定“否定了”实质性指控上的“无罪裁决”）；同上（特殊裁定给了控方“第二次定罪的机会”）同上（如果实质性指控的无罪裁决与特殊裁定相矛盾，应采取各种步骤）。基于上述理由，所有这些主张均不成立。

原文第 64 页

-54-

course of action would have been to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence

行动方案应是质疑支持非自愿奴役是共谋目的

supporting the finding that involuntary servitude was an object of the conspiracy.

这一认定的证据充分性。

See Powell, 469 U.S. at 67; Thomas, 900 F.2d at 40. But defendant eschewed this

见Powell, 469 U.S. at 67; Thomas, 900 F.2d at 40。但被告回避了这一

course, instead taking the unfounded position that no such finding was made in the

路径，反而采取了毫无根据的立场，即根本未作出此类认定，

first place, a tactical decision that foreclosed any argument regarding verdict

这一策略性决定排除了任何关于裁决

inconsistency. Because the jury found that involuntary servitude was an object of

不一致的论点。由于陪审团认定非自愿奴役是共谋

the conspiracy and the evidence supported conviction on the conspiracy count, the

的目的，且证据支持共谋罪名成立，

district court’s reliance on that conviction in sentencing defendant is unassailable.

地区法院在量刑时依据该定罪是无可置疑的。

Defendant’s remaining arguments (Br. 54-55) merit little discussion.

被告其余论点（Br. 54-55）不值得多作讨论。

Defendant’s assertion that her trial counsel asked the district court for clarification

被告关于其庭审律师请求地区法院澄清

regarding the basis of the conspiracy (Br. 54) is factually incorrect. Clarification

共谋依据（Br. 54）的主张在事实上不正确。并未

was not sought as to the basis for the conspiracy. Rather, defendant’s trial counsel

就共谋的依据寻求澄清。相反，被告的庭审律师

sought clarification only with respect to whether the jury’s conviction on count

仅就陪审团对第三项罪名（实质窝藏指控）的定罪

three (the substantive harboring charge) was based on her own acts or on her

是基于其自身行为还是基于其

liability for acts committed by her co-conspirator under Pinkerton. J.A. 2070.

根据Pinkerton对共谋者行为的责任寻求澄清。J.A. 2070。

And defendant’s trial counsel conceded such clarification would not affect her

且被告的庭审律师承认此类澄清不会影响其

score under the guidelines, as it was only relevant to where the judge would

在指南下的评分，因为其仅与法官将在

原文第 65 页

-55-

sentence her within the guideline range. J.A. 2070-2071. 20

指南范围内何处对其量刑有关。J.A. 2070-2071。20

In addition, the fact an application note to a general provision of the

此外，指南一般条款的适用注释建议

guidelines counsels caution where the verdict does not establish the object of the

在裁决未确定共谋目的时应谨慎，Br. 54-55，

conspiracy, Br. 54-55, obviously is not relevant where, as here, we know from the

共谋，Br. 54-55，显然不相关，因为在此处，我们从

structure of the verdict form and accompanying instructions the jury reached

裁决表的结构和随附指示可知，陪审团就

unanimity regarding the most serious object of the conspiracy.

共谋最严重的目的达成了一致。

Finally, for the reasons stated above, the district court did not, as defendant

最后，基于上述理由，地区法院并未如被告

asserts, “ignore[] the acquittal,” Br. 55, on the substantive involuntary-servitude

所称“无视[]无罪宣告”，Br. 55，在实质非自愿奴役

charge when it used involuntary servitude as the object offense for the conspiracy

指控中，当其将非自愿奴役作为共谋

conviction in calculating defendant’s sentence. More to the point, however, this

定罪的目的事罪以计算被告刑罚时。然而，更确切地说，

argument fails because district courts are permitted to ignore acquittals. Indeed, it

该论点不成立，因为地区法院被允许无视无罪宣告。事实上，

is well established district courts may consider all relevant conduct – including

早已确立地区法院在量刑时可以考虑所有相关行为——包括

acquitted conduct – at sentencing. See United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 157

被宣告无罪的行为。见United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 157

(1997); United States v. Jackson, 167 F.3d 1280, 1285 (9th Cir. 1999) (invoking

(1997); United States v. Jackson, 167 F.3d 1280, 1285 (9th Cir. 1999)（援引

20 Defendant also suggests (Br. 54) the district court went back on its purported promise to apply the rule of lenity in calculating her guideline range. This is incorrect. As noted above, the court’s comment related only to where defendant would be sentenced within the guideline range once it was set, not on the calculation of the range. J.A. 2070-2071. At any rate, the district court did show lenity in regard to where defendant’s sentence fell within the guideline range, sentencing defendant to the bottom of the applicable range, J.A. 2247, even though defendant’s trial counsel conceded the court was not bound by its earlier comments, J.A. 2178-2179.

20 被告还暗示（Br. 54）地区法院违背了其据称的承诺，即在计算其指南范围时适用从宽解释规则。这不正确。如上所述，法院的评论仅涉及一旦指南范围确定后被告将在该范围内何处量刑，而非范围的计算。J.A. 2070-2071。无论如何，地区法院在被告刑罚落在指南范围内何处方面确实表现了从宽，将被告判处适用范围的最低端，J.A. 2247，尽管被告的庭审律师承认法院不受其先前评论的约束，J.A. 2178-2179。

原文第 66 页

-56-

Watts where jury convicted on conspiracy charge but acquitted on substantive

Watts案，其中陪审团认定共谋罪名成立但宣告实质

charge despite having been given a Pinkerton instruction). 21 Accordingly, the

罪名不成立，尽管已获得Pinkerton指示）。21 因此，

jury’s acquittal of defendant on the substantive involuntary-servitude charge did

陪审团宣告被告实质非自愿奴役罪名不成立

not preclude the district court from calculating defendant’s sentence based on the

并未阻止地区法院依据

involuntary-servitude guideline, both because the verdict form unequivocally

非自愿奴役指南计算被告刑罚，既因为裁决表明确

indicates the jury unanimously concluded involuntary servitude was an object of

表明陪审团一致认定非自愿奴役是

the conspiracy, and because the district court was entitled to consider acquitted

共谋的目的，也因为地区法院无论如何

conduct at any rate.

有权考虑被宣告无罪的行为。

B. Defendant’s Sentence Is Procedurally Reasonable

B. 被告的刑罚在程序上合理

Defendant next challenges the reasonableness of her sentence because of the

被告接下来质疑其刑罚的合理性，理由是

district court’s denial of her request for a downward adjustment based on her role

地区法院驳回了其基于在犯罪中的角色

in the offense. This Court reviews the district court’s determination for clear error.

要求下调的请求。本法院对地区法院的裁定进行明显错误审查。

United States v. Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456, 463 (4th Cir. 2004).

United States v. Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456, 463 (4th Cir. 2004)。

Section 3B1.2 allows for a four-level reduction if defendant is found to be a

第3B1.2条允许在认定被告为

“minimal participant,” a two-level reduction for a “minor participant,” and a three-

“最小参与者”时减四级，为“次要参与者”时减两级，以及

21 Courts uniformly have held this principle remains valid post-Booker. See United States v. Mercado, 474 F.3d 654, 657 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing cases). This Court does not appear to have addressed this issue in a published opinion, but has recognized it in unpublished opinions. See, e.g., United States v. Bokman, 2007 WL 216290, at *2 (4th Cir. 2007); United States v. Cooper, 201 Fed. Appx. 155 (4th Cir. 2006).

21 法院一致认为该原则在Booker案后仍然有效。见United States v. Mercado, 474 F.3d 654, 657 (9th Cir. 2007)（引用案例）。本法院似乎未在已公布意见中处理该问题，但已在未公布意见中予以认可。见，例如，United States v. Bokman, 2007 WL 216290, at *2 (4th Cir. 2007); United States v. Cooper, 201 Fed. Appx. 155 (4th Cir. 2006)。

原文第 67 页

-57-

level reduction for a defendant falling somewhere in between. Sentencing

对介于两者之间的被告减三级。《量刑

Guidelines § 3B1.2. Defendant bears the burden of proving entitlement to such a

指南》§ 3B1.2。被告负有以

reduction “by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Akinkoye, 185

“优势证据”证明其有权获得此类减刑的责任。United States v. Akinkoye, 185

F.3d 192, 202 (4th Cir. 1999).

F.3d 192, 202 (4th Cir. 1999)。

Here, the district court concluded “there is no reason to suppose that the jury

在此，地区法院认定“没有理由认为陪审团

found that the defendant was other than co-equally responsible with George

认定被告在共谋方面与George

Udeozor in connection with the conspiracy.” J.A. 2182. Noting that defendant

Udeozor并非同等责任。”J.A. 2182。指出被告

would have to demonstrate “substantially less culpability” in order to be entitled to

必须证明“明显较轻的罪责”才有权获得

a reduction, the district court accordingly found “no basis under the guidelines for

相应地，地区法院认定“根据量刑指南，没有依据

any sort of departure on that basis.” J.A. 2182-2183.

以此为由作出任何形式的偏离。”J.A. 2182-2183。

In no way was this finding clearly erroneous. Defendant was the day-to-day

这一认定绝无明显的错误。被告是受害人的日常

taskmaster for the victim, supervising her work both at home and at defendant’s

监工，监督她在家里和被告的

medical office. Defendant was the one giving orders on a daily basis, punishing

医疗办公室的工作。被告是每天发号施令、在受害人未按其满意完成工作时

the victim when work was not performed to her satisfaction, and inflicting the

惩罚受害人、并对受害人实施大部分非性虐待的人。

majority of the non-sexual abuse on the victim. And it was defendant – not George

而且，是被告——而非George

Udeozor – who told the victim what to say when asked about her relationship to

Udeozor——在被问及她与Udeozors夫妇的关系时告诉受害人该说什么。

the Udeozors. J.A. 581-582. Most importantly, defendant continued to hold the

J.A. 581-582。最重要的是，在George Udeozor离开

victim in involuntary servitude for almost two years after George Udeozor left the

该国后，被告仍继续使受害人处于非自愿奴役状态近两年。

country. Accordingly, defendant was – at a minimum – a co-equal partner in the

因此，被告——至少——是

原文第 68 页

-58-

conspiracy, and the district court’s rejection of defendant’s argument was not clear

共谋中的同等伙伴，地区法院驳回被告的论点并非明显

error.

错误。

C. Defendant’s Sentence Is Reasonable Under Section 3553(a)

C. 被告的刑罚根据第3553(a)条是合理的

Defendant’s challenge to the reasonableness of her sentence tellingly omits

被告对其刑罚合理性的质疑，颇具说明性地省略了

any discussion of the district court’s required analysis of the Section 3553(a)

对地区法院依要求对第3553(a)条

factors. This analysis strongly reinforces the reasonableness of defendant’s

各项因素所作分析的任何讨论。这一分析有力地强化了被告

sentence.

刑罚的合理性。

During the sentencing hearing, the victim described the overwhelming

在量刑听证期间，受害人描述了被告在她如此年幼时

responsibility defendant placed on her at such a young age, J.A. 2206; how

强加于她的沉重责任，J.A. 2206；被告的行为如何

defendant’s actions deprived her of an education and of her teenage years, J.A.

剥夺了她受教育和度过青少年时期的机会，J.A.

2208-2209; the fact she still is in counseling as the result of her ordeal in

2208-2209；她因在被告家中的遭遇而仍在接受心理咨询

defendant’s home, J.A. 2209; and the fact the Udeozors have retaliated against her

这一事实，J.A. 2209；以及Udeozors夫妇因本案而在尼日利亚

family in Nigeria as the result of this case. J.A. 2210-2213. For her part,

对她的家人进行报复这一事实。J.A. 2210-2213。就被告而言，

defendant remained unrepentant, continuing to claim innocence, J.A. 2233, and

她仍毫无悔意，继续声称自己无罪，J.A. 2233，并

accusing the victim of fabricating the events that led to her conviction and

指控受害人捏造了导致其被定罪的事件，并

“manipulat[ing] the system to punish [defendant].” J.A. 2234-2235.

“操纵制度来惩罚[被告]。”J.A. 2234-2235。

In assessing the Section 3553(a) factors, the district court found the offense

在评估第3553(a)条各项因素时，地区法院认定该罪行

to be a serious one, and described as “very troubling” the fact defendant continued

性质严重，并将被告继续

to view herself as a victim. J.A. 2242-2243. The court further found defendant

视自己为受害人这一事实描述为“非常令人不安”。J.A. 2242-2243。法院进一步认定被告

原文第 69 页

-59-

“engaged in a pattern of fraud throughout her time in this country,” J.A. 2243,

“在其在该国期间一直从事欺诈行为”，J.A. 2243，

including marriage fraud with regard to her immigration status, J.A. 2243-2244,

包括就其移民身份实施婚姻欺诈，J.A. 2243-2244，

and Medicaid fraud in the running of her medical practice, J.A. 2244, in addition to

以及在其经营医疗业务中实施Medicaid欺诈，J.A. 2244，此外还有

the acts of which she was convicted in this case. The court concluded “the

其在本案中被定罪的行为。法院得出结论：“被告的

characteristics of the defendant are that she doesn’t understand, in light of this

特征在于，鉴于这整个经历，尤其是本案的经历，她不理解

entire history, and particularly the history of this case, that you cannot speak and

你不能像你一直以来那样说话和

do these things the way you have done them.” J.A. 2244-2245.

做事。”J.A. 2244-2245。

Proceeding through the remaining Section 3553(a) factors, the district court

在逐一审查第3553(a)条其余各项因素时，地区法院

addressed, inter alia, the need for deterrence in these types of cases, J.A. 2245, the

除其他事项外，讨论了此类案件中的威慑需要，J.A. 2245，

type of sentences available and range of sentences in similar cases, J.A. 2246, and

可用的刑罚种类及类似案件中的刑罚幅度，J.A. 2246，以及

the Bureau of Prisons’ ability to address defendant’s medical needs, J.A. 2246.

监狱管理局满足被告医疗需求的能力，J.A. 2246。

Following this analysis, the court sentenced defendant to 87 months – the low end

经过这一分析，法院判处被告87个月——即量刑指南幅度的

of the guideline range, J.A. 2241 – and ordered restitution in the amount of

低端，J.A. 2241——并命令赔偿金额为

$110,249.60, half the amount the government sought. J.A. 2247-2248.

$110,249.60，即政府所求金额的一半。J.A. 2247-2248。

Defendant’s sentence accordingly is reasonable under Section 3553(a).

因此，被告的刑罚根据第3553(a)条是合理的。

原文第 70 页

-60-

CONCLUSION

结论

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should affirm the judgment below.

基于上述理由，本法院应维持下级法院的判决。

Respectfully submitted,

谨此提交，

WAN J. KIM Assistant Attorney General

WAN J. KIM 助理司法部长

/s/ JESSICA DUNSAY SILVER DIRK C. PHILLIPS Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Appellate Section Ben Franklin Station P.O. Box 14403 Washington, D.C. 20044-4403 (202) 305-4876

/s/ JESSICA DUNSAY SILVER DIRK C. PHILLIPS 律师美国司法部民权司上诉科 Ben Franklin Station P.O. Box 14403 Washington, D.C. 20044-4403 (202) 305-4876

原文第 71 页

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

合规证明

I hereby certify that this brief complies with the type volume limitation

本人特此证明，本书状符合

imposed by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B). The brief was prepared using

Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)所规定的字数限制。本书状使用

WordPerfect 12 and contains no more than 13,668 words of proportionally spaced

WordPerfect 12编写，比例间距文本不超过13,668

text. The type face is Times New Roman, 14-point font.

词。字体为Times New Roman，14磅。

/s/ DIRK C. PHILLIPS Attorney

/s/ DIRK C. PHILLIPS 律师

Date: April 16, 2007

日期：2007年4月16日

原文第 72 页

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

送达证明

I hereby certify that on April 16, 2007, two copies of the foregoing BRIEF

本人特此证明，于2007年4月16日，前述《美利坚合众国作为被上诉人

FOR THE UNITED STATES AS APPELLEE were served via first-class mail on

书状》的两份副本已通过一等邮件送达

the following counsel of record:

以下在案律师：

Victoria Toensing Brady Toensing Joseph E. diGenova diGenova & Toensing, LLP 1776 K Street, NW, Suite 737 Washington, DC 20006

/s/ DIRK C. PHILLIPS Attorney

/s/ DIRK C. PHILLIPS 律师