United States v. George
779 F.3d 113
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Annie George employed Valsamma Mathai, an Indian national with expired/invalid work authorization, as a live‑in domestic worker from 2005–2011; Mathai worked long hours for far less than promised pay.
- George never required proof of authorization or filed employment/tax forms (W‑2, 1099, etc.), and directed Mathai to tell others she was a visiting family friend and not to discuss her immigration status.
- In May 2011 federal agents removed Mathai after a hotline report; George delayed the removal, put Mathai in the basement, and later prevented her from retrieving belongings.
- Recorded calls showed George acknowledged Mathai’s illegal status, feared tax liability, urged Mathai to lie to authorities, and expressed concern about being charged.
- A jury convicted George under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) for harboring an illegal alien; the district court sentenced her to probation, home confinement, and ordered forfeiture of her residence under 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction on "harboring": whether instruction omitted required concealment intent after Vargas‑Cordon | Gov: district court charge, read as a whole, conveyed concealment and facilitation elements | George: instruction saying "harboring means simply to afford shelter" failed to require intent to prevent detection (Vargas‑Cordon) | No plain error; charge, taken as whole, adequately conveyed concealment/facilitation and any defect was harmless |
| Sufficiency of evidence for harboring (intent to prevent detection) | Gov: circumstantial and direct evidence (no employment forms, directives to lie, delay/obstruction, admissions) supports intent | George: evidence insufficient to show intent to prevent detection | Conviction affirmed; a rational jury could find intent beyond reasonable doubt |
| Mens rea formulation (intent vs. conduct) | Gov: intent can be proved circumstantially and was overwhelmingly shown | George: district court focused on conduct rather than intent (raised in reply) | Argument waived in reply and, in any event, fails on plain‑error review |
| Excessive‑fines challenge to forfeiture of home equity | Gov: forfeiture of property used to facilitate multi‑year harboring is proportional given gravity, harm, and statutory maxima | George: forfeiture (equity ~ $96,938) is grossly disproportional under Eighth Amendment and Bajakajian | Forfeiture not constitutionally excessive under Bajakajian/Castello; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vargas‑Cordon, 733 F.3d 366 (2d Cir. 2013) (harboring requires intent both to substantially facilitate remaining in U.S. and to prevent detection)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency review: conviction must be upheld if any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) (criminal forfeiture is punishment subject to Excessive Fines Clause; forfeiture unconstitutional if grossly disproportional)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (omission of an element in jury instruction is subject to harmless‑error review)
- United States v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567 (2d Cir. 1999) (harboring conviction upheld despite open employment under false papers—active concealment of defendant’s own acts not required)
- United States v. Sabhnani, 599 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2010) (jury instructions evaluated in context of the entire charge)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) (standards for plain‑error review in criminal cases)
- United States v. Agrawal, 726 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2013) (harmlessness of omitted element when overwhelming evidence proves it)