U.S. v. King, s. 87-1040

Decision Date21 April 1988
Docket NumberNos. 87-1040,s. 87-1040
Citation840 F.2d 1276
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Muriel S. KING (87-1040/1071), Robert A. McGee (87-1041), William Alexander Lewis (87-1042), Larry E. Branson (87-1072), William Lenard Lewis (87-1073), Theodore R. Jones (87-1074), Eddie L. Green (87-1075), Defendants-Appellants. to 87-1042, 87-1071 to 87-1075.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Michael B. Quinn, Leroy Kramer, Larry C. Willey, Charles S. Rominger, Dennis Kolenda (argued), Anthony J. Valentine, Robert Mirque, Grand Rapids, Mich., for defendants-appellants.

Daniel L. Bell, II, Irving Gornstein (argued) Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Donald A. Davis, Asst. U.S. Atty., Grand Rapids, Mich., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before MERRITT and NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.

MERRITT, Circuit Judge.

After a bench trial, District Judge Douglas Hillman convicted seven members of an unorthodox religious commune of two federal crimes: (1) willfully holding John Yarbough, a minor, to "involuntary servitude" in violation of Sec. 1584, Title 18; 1 and (2) conspiring to deprive Yarbough and other children living at the religious commune of their constitutional right to be free from "involuntary servitude" as guaranteed by the Thirteenth Amendment. 2 On appeal the seven defendants' principal contentions are that Judge Hillman erred for two reasons:

First, because he did not apply the definition of "holding to involuntary servitude" established in our opinion in United States v. Kozminski, 821 F.2d 1186 (6th Cir.1987), cert. granted [--- U.S. ----], 108 S.Ct. 225 (1987), an opinion of the Court sitting en banc delivered after Judge Hillman's opinion on the defendants' motion to dismiss and on the merits, 644 F.Supp. 1391 (W.D.Mich.1986).

Second, because the defendants are insulated from criminal liability because the children's parents, as members of the commune, consented in writing and orally to the beatings and physical threats which defendants used to make the children work. Thus by virtue of this consent the defendants share the parents' immunity under the Thirteenth Amendment.

Without authoritative precedent from this Court or the Supreme Court on the meaning of involuntary servitude at the time it rendered its decision, the District Court made alternative findings under alternative standards. We hold that one of the standards used, and the findings made thereunder, are fully consistent with our opinion in Kozminski. We also agree with the District Court that the defendants who committed the brutal acts do not share the immunity of the parents under the Thirteenth Amendment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the District Court.

I.

In Kozminski this Court, sitting en banc, defined "holding to involuntary servitude" under Secs. 1584 and 241 after tracing the purpose and history of the statutes by establishing a two part test, the last part of which has three alternatives:

We conclude that a "holding to involuntary servitude" occurs when (a) the servant believes that he or she has no viable alternative but to perform service for the master (b) because of (1) the master's use or threatened use of physical force, or (2) the master's use or threatened use of state-imposed legal coercion (i.e., peonage), or (3) the master's use of fraud or deceit to obtain or maintain services where the servant is a minor, an immigrant or one who is mentally incompetent.

821 F.2d at 1192. We rejected a broader, "brainwashing," standard because such a standard "might appear to place the day-to-day activities of cult groups, communes and religious orders within the coverage of the statute." Id. at 1193. We noted that "our standard would criminalize these activities only if the group engaged in one of the proscribed types of conduct." Id.

The facts as found by the District Court are based upon overwhelming evidence, most of which is undisputed. The District Court carefully described the cult group and its practices in part as follows:

All of the defendants are members of a black, religious sect known as the House of Judah. It originated in the Chicago ghetto under the leadership of defendant William A. Lewis known as the "Prophet".

The evidence is undisputed that from the very beginning he is the unchallenged head and ruler of the House of Judah. He is referred to as "My Lord Prophet David Israel" by other members including the defendants and bowed to and deferred to in all matters. The Prophet believes in the literal interpretation of the Old Testament; that he, as the Prophet, is God's representative on earth; that membership in the House of Judah is a prerequisite to salvation; that the members of his cult, black Hebrews, are the only legitimate, chosen people and the true historical Israelites. The Prophet also believes that all non-members are heathens, sinful and unworthy; that the road to salvation requires a learning of the distinction between good and evil as set forth in the Old Testament and as taught by the Prophet and further, that corporal punishment, referred to as "chastisement," is a proper and necessary means of punishment for those who break the rules of the House of Judah.

The group started with classes held in Chicago. Then, as the movement grew, the Prophet organized a camp in Western Michigan located in a relatively remote, rural area approximately 20 miles from Allegan. The camp consisted of close to 100 people who lived in approximately 30 trailers as well as two homes, one occupied by the Prophet and the other by defendant Muriel King, also known as "the Prophetess." In addition, there were other buildings on the property, one being a meeting hall and the other a classroom. The camp also had an area set aside for swings and other playground equipment for children. There were no fences or other barriers around the perimeter of the camp. Also on the property were a number of animals such as goats and cows.

As described by one of the witnesses, during the early years (middle to late '70s) the camp environment was warm, cooperative and friendly. By 1981, however, life at the camp began to change. Apparently the Prophet reached the conclusion that the House of Judah members were backsliding, breaking camp and/or biblical rules. As a result, he established whippings as a means of punishment or chastisement.

In March 1982, the Prophet caused a document to be prepared and signed by adult members of the House of Judah in which members agreed to accept punishment for "sins against God and my Lord and also for my children." Punishment was specified in the document to include death, banishment, confiscation of material goods, imprisonment, beating, burning, hanging or stoning of both the adult member and that member's children. Prior thereto punishment had included fines, work assignments and the digging of large holes. But by 1981, "chastisement" included beating which could be imposed for such transgressions as disrespect for or disobedience to the Prophet, refusal to do assigned work, or violation of camp rules. As an implementation of the new whipping policy and as a means of instilling fear in both adults and children, Prophet Lewis ordered construction of a whipping block. It was fashioned after the stocks used in colonial days containing holes for the head and hands to confine offenders during the whippings.

In addition to the Prophet, the camp was also run by a council composed of the Prophet's closest associates, including his son and the Prophetess. All of the council members were appointed by the Prophet, and all of the defendants, during the period covered by the indictment, served at one time or another on this leadership council. Most of the whippings were done in the presence of the entire camp membership with the council members located near the stock and next to the Prophet. It was the practice of the Prophet, upon being advised of a member's transgression, to consult the council for a recommendation as to how many "licks" should be administered. It was the undisputed testimony that the Prophet would then order the transgressor to step forward. Making reference to some biblical authority or rule, the Prophet would order the individual into the stock to be beaten anywhere from 5 to 80 "licks." A heavy wooden axe handle labeled "Big Mac" was the implement used to beat the men, women and at least the bigger children. Defendants Jones, Branson and McGee were frequently, but not always, the individuals selected by the Prophet to administer this punishment.

United States v. Lewis, 644 F.Supp. 1391, 1395-96 (W.D.Mich.1986).

As a result of a particularly harsh and brutal series of beatings for not working, John Yarbough, a twelve year old boy whose mother was a member of the commune died. Other children were also brutally beaten, burned and disfigured. The District Court's opinion describes these facts in detail. See Lewis, 644 F.Supp. at 1395-1400.

II.

Although the District Court first analyzed the case under the loose "subjugation of the will," or "brainwashing" standard set out in United States v. Mussry, 726 F.2d 1448 (9th Cir.1984), a standard we rejected in part in Kozminski, see 821 F.2d at 1189-91, the District Court made alternative findings that are entirely correct and fully consistent with our Kozminski test. The District Judge said:

The severity, frequency, and widespread nature of the beatings alone satisfy me that the defendants had the specific intent to subjugate the will of the boys, that is, to render them incapable of choosing a course other than that ordered by the Prophet and the other defendants.

In addition to severely beating the boys, the defendants publicly beat the boys' parents, their school teacher, and other adults thus making it unmistakably clear to the children that they could not look for help from those to whom...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • U.S. v. Alkhabaz
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 14 April 1997
    ... ...         Applying our interpretation of the statute to the facts before us, we conclude that the communications between Baker and Gonda do not constitute "communication[s] ... ...
  • Zavala v. Wal Mart Stores Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 9 August 2012
  • Rose v. Adams Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • 11 March 2014
  • In re Lee
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 27 September 2013
    ... ... III. Statutory Interpretation          The sole issue before us today is whether a trial court presented with a request for entry of judgment on a validly executed ... See, e.g., United States v. King, 840 F.2d 1276, 1283 (6th Cir.1988) (“[A] parent's contract allowing a third person to burn, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Commercial sexual exploitation: human sex trafficking & non-consensual pornography
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law No. XXIV-2, January 2023
    • 1 January 2023
    ...889 F.3d 910, 913 (7th Cir. 2018); United States v. Wardlow, 830 F.3d 817, 821 (8th Cir. 2016). 21. See, e.g. , United States v. King, 840 F.2d 1276, 1282 (6th Cir. 1988). 22. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2421 (West, Westlaw through Pub. L. No. 115–90); see, e.g. , United States v. Mi Sun Cho, 713 F.3d 71......
  • When Bonds Turn to Badges
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-2, December 2021
    • 1 December 2021
    ...54 F.3d 994, 999–1000, 1009 (1st Cir. 1995) (aff‌irming that domestic worker was held in involuntary servitude); United States v. King, 840 F.2d 1276, 1277–78 (6th Cir. 1988) (holding that a religious cult held children in involuntary servitude); United States v. Warren, 772 F.2d 827, 829 (......
  • The Thirteenth Amendment at the Intersection of Class and Gender: Robertson v. Baldwin's Exclusion of Infants, Lunatics, Women, and Seamen
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 39-03, March 2016
    • Invalid date
    ...26. Lea S. VanderVelde, The Labor Vision of the Thirteenth Amendment, 138 U. Pa. L. Rev. 437, 458 (1989). Cf. United States v. King, 840 F.2d 1276, 1282 (6th Cir. 1988) (holding that the coercion of children's labor by cult leaders constituted "involuntary servitude" under a statute enacted......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT