United States v. Tony Booker, United States of America v. J. D. Rollins
655 F.2d 562
4th Cir.
1981
Check Treatment

*1 support testifies defendant [W]hen evidence Fourth suppress a motion to testimony may grounds,

Amendment against him at

not thereafter admitted he makes guilt unless on the issue of

trial objection. at 976.

AFFIRMED. America, Appellee,

UNITED STATES BOOKER,

Tony Appellant. America, Appellee,

UNITED STATES ROLLINS, Appellant.

J. D.

Nos. 80-5165. Appeals,

United States Court

Fourth Circuit.

Argued March 1981. July

Decided

intent hold them as slaves in violation of 1583and 2 Booker and legal appeal, questioning Rollins suffi- ciency evidence to convict them un- legal der the statute and the correctness of the district court’s instruction to the what it means to be “held as a slave” under 1583. We appeals see no merit in the and affirm.

I. operated migrant Booker a agricultural camp County, Johnston North Car- lieutenants, olina. Two of his Rollins and Gibson, brought Walters, Gary his half- Joseph camp brother and Romeo to the Florida, having from promised them free transportation steady and work. men employment discovered instead that was in- termittent, they would be both for their meals while idle for their and Florida, transportation from that Booker wages required withheld their and all retail purchases camp, to be executed at the and were forbidden to leave the camp any had until satisfied debts allegedly owed Booker. Booker repeatedly threat- inju- ened workers at the with serious ry or if they attempted death to leave with- debts, paying up out he backed his threats with severe and assaults firearms, personally administered by his lieutenants. Nall, Smithfield, C.,

Joseph T. The indictment was N. John H. returned as re- Boddie, C., of an Raleigh, camp involving N. sult incident appellants. Romeo. Walters asked Booker Lerner, Dept, (Wal- Louise A. of Justice permission buy to leave Barnett, Justice, Dept, ter W. James P. personal some items and for a small ad- Turner, Gen., Acting Atty. Asst. Wash- refused, his wages. vance on C., ington, brief), D. on for appellee. camp, leaving left instructions to his WIDENER, things” “keep eye Before an WINTER and Circuit lieutenants MICHAEL,* Judges, permit Judge. depart not to in his District workers absence. Walters and set out none- WINTER, Judge: Circuit store, nearby whereupon theless for Rol- Booker, lins, Tony J. Tony D. Rollins and Gib- Gibson and a third unidentified individ- son by jury them, were convicted severely, ual threatened beat them and carrying away two with the forced them into the van and returned them * Michael, Jr., ginia, sitting by designation. Honorable James H. United States Judge District for the Western District of Vir- (M,D.Ala.l903); see also down knocked camp. Walters was

to the 20-23, Cases, Rights 109 U.S. he en- jaw, until The Civil choked a blow van, to his 27 L.Ed. again then struck tered (16 Wall.) camp, breaking his Slaughter-House upon his return to knees J., (1873) (Field, 36, 89-90, face. Romeo was bloodying nose *3 Booker, dissenting). handle. severely with an ax beaten camp by time who to had returned Significantly, the thirteenth amendment back, brought Walters and Romeo had slavery applied only to state-sanctioned not expect more them that could warned As slavery by individuals. practiced but to they ever tried to physical abuse or death if in the Civil stated Supreme Court owing money, him again leave while Rights Cases: foul and punctuating this discussion with and effect By its own force unaided language. and Romeo abusive Walters univer- slavery, and established abolished they thought that Book- both testified that Still, may be legislation sal freedom. They left carry er to out threats. meant vari- proper meet all necessary and to repre- camp shortly thereafter when to affect- be cases and circumstances ous Legal of Farm Workers’ Services sentatives it, proper modes prescribe ed and to arrived, attention refused medical spirit. in letter or violation redress its anxiety to North because their leave primary and may be legislation such And away and his get from Booker Carolina character; amend- in direct its men. prohibition not mere of State ment is slavery, establishing upholding or laws II. slavery but an absolute declaration provid We that this evidence hold exist in involuntary servitude shall not or ed basis on which the a substantial part of the United States. beyond conclude a reasonable doubt could 28. 3 S.Ct. at U.S. Gibson, instigation at the that Rollins and swiftly provide in fact moved Booker, kidnapped away carried amendment was legislation such after the road, and Romeo from the re The was ratified in December 1865. South with turning them to the the intent to abandon- far reconciled to the from in hold them slaves violation of U.S.C. of forced labor system ment of 1583 and 2.1 reach this conclusion §§ the economic significantly to contributed understanding from our intent and Fogel R. agriculture. of its See success scope along 1583. Section (1974). Engerman, on the Cross S. Time sections 1581 and 1584 of Title they sim- strongly that Many planters felt to enforce the thirteenth amend enacted com- ply their fields without could work Constitution, provides in ment on Re- Leader pulsory Georgia A service. part slavery involuntary nor “Neither of Alabama construction and Conversation . . . within the United shall exist ed., Current, Reconstruc- in Planters R.N. States, juris subject to any place or (1969). More- [1865-1877], tion legisla diction.” The amendment over, large numbers had war-torn South merely tion were intended eradicate not today people who uprooted of homeless system slavery that had exist formal as refu- characterized prior probably ed in would be the southern states Civil roam- War, gees commonly seen as all but were then compulsory, forms involun States, ing, vagrants. local au- Clyatt “dangerous” Some service. See employ- 207, 215-19, 429, 430-431, by permitting responded thorities 25 S.Ct. essen- (1905); Peonage engage L.Ed. 726 ers on a basis that laborers slave; provides pertinent part: Shall be not more in held as a ... fined Section 1583 $5,000 imprisoned not more than five than or kidnaps away any Whoever or carries other years, or both. per- person, with the intent that such other servitude, son sold into ing tially V. the broad and sweeping bound the worker for life. C. intention of Woodward, Strange during Jim Congress period Career of the Reconstruction (3d Rev.Ed.1974). Crow Many stamp vestiges states regime out of the old se- prevent reappearance enacted so-called “Black Codes” verely restricted the freedom of the former forced labor new form it whatever sanc- provided tough might slaves and take.2

tions for those who violated their “labor reported The few cases that discuss this Franklin, employers. contracts” with J. H. provisions statute and the related of 18 Reconstruction After the Civil War 48-50 and 1584 have confirmed Roark, J. L. Masters Without Slaves Alabama, In Bailey view. Freedmen’s Bureau (1911), 31 S.Ct. military quick- federal authorities acted Supreme held invalid an Alabama Court *4 ly to eliminate the more obnoxious features prescribed penalties statute that schemes, of these but the Radical dominant employ- for laborers who breached their Congress faction in became convinced that satisfying ment contracts without debts the openly-expressed Southern attitudes employer. owed their The statute estab- quick the confirmed the enactment of presumption of lished criminal intent Black the of presaged Codes recrudescence employer by defraud the fact of the the Franklin, slavery. supra, J. H. at 55-57. mere of the The breach contract. Court 1866, sought life Congress In to extend the effectively required ruled that statute Bureau, of the Freedmen’s enacted the Civil impermissible compulsory service under the Rights 1866, 28, May Bill of and on acted compul- thirteenth amendment because proscribe kidnapping purpose of sell- in the threat sanc- sion inherent of criminal ing persons involuntary into servitude or strong tions was as as that inherent in the holding them as slaves. 14 39th Stat. physical use of force. 219 Cong., (1866). 1st Sess. 31 S.Ct. at 151-153. In United States v. legislative history provision, McClellan, (S.D.Ga.1904),

The for this F. 971 the dis- 127 now very codified as quash 18 U.S.C. is trict court refused to indictment an limited. Senator Charles Sumner of Massa- that several with the defendants chusetts, Radicals, labor, holding one of the leaders of the sale of a into forced that man (now 1584) introduced the prevent bill as measure to statutes §§ sale type of to broadly regulated former slaves behavior of this permitted countries which still such slavery, were nor were to neither unconstitutional as Cuba Cong.Globe, and Brazil. 39th to the of confined narrow circumstances Cong., Roark, 1st particular Sess. 852 see J. L. evils were they which intend- supra. Notwithstanding pur- Peonage this ed also The limited See redress.3 pose, the statute should be express- read example, Wall.) Congress (16 thirty-ninth

2. For in 1867 acted to out- 72. The Con- system peonage Territory gress law the in the and its successors in the Reconstruction clearly New Spanish Mexico that had existed era determined since the were to ensure just comprehensive Cong., colonial era. 14 amendment had such a ef- Stat. 39th 2d Sess. predecessor is fect. This statute of 18 Supreme U.S.C. §§ and 1584. As the above, against prohibitions pe- 3. As noted Slaughter-House pointed Court in the Cases onage now codified out: originally 1581 and 1584 Undoubtedly negro slavery while alone congressional effort to stemmed from elimi- proposed the mind of the system peonage in the Terri- nate the formal tory article, the thirteenth it forbids other Friendly’s Judge Mexico. discus- New slavery, kind of now or hereafter. If Mexi- opinion sion of statutes in his for the these peonage sys- can or the Chinese coolie labor Shackney, court in States v. develop tem shall of the Mexican demonstrates that territory, Chinese race within our this history subsequent legislative both the and the may safely amendment judicial be trusted to make construction of these confirm statutes void. applicability to conditions where broad III. the sort accordingly think that camp operated migrant at oral ar conceded defendants other assistance exem behavior was not gument that their pur clearly comes within in this case appeal plary, but contend thirteenth statutes. view its case government failed to establish enforce it and the laws that amendment First 1583.4 against them under § involuntary servi only at were directed present government did not that the submit by state supported action tude prove requisite evidence to sufficient private as well. purely exacted conduct as slaves. to hold Walters intent principle They established fundamental of “slav generally accepted definition labor of person no could secure the is the pro ery” under formulation compulsion. The statutes another similarly mi Ingalls, tected situated in United States v. district court They grant workers of our own time. (S.D.Cal.1947): F.Supp. property

persons without and without skills subject person wholly A who is slave is a tending the With save those in fields. little another, who has to the will of one education, money hope, they little and little person and freedom of action and whose easily prey tempting fell offers of services under the control are individuals, “powerful unscrupulous” another, compul- is in a and who state McClellan, F. at United States v. *5 sory service to another. complete who assert control would soon might argue over That be F.Supp. their lives. control 78. The defendants 73 at through maintained the threat of criminal not that Walters and sanctions, Bailey in and as v. Alabama did not because he under Booker’s control (S.D. Ingalls, F.Supp. 76 United States v. 73 force, “superior overpowering maintain Cal.1947), through physical prac force as or rely- constantly threatening,” present and Bibbs, ticed in United v. here and States Shackney, F.2d ing 333 on United States denied, (5 564 F.2d 1165 Cir. cert. 435 475, (2 1964). is 486 That reliance 1007, 1877, L.Ed.2d U.S. 98 S.Ct. 56 388 matter, First, the mistaken. as a factual disturbing involun It is that such the readily in case establishes record was the silent servitude assisted pervading of Booker’s climate fear acquiescence and even collaborative of local the created the and assaults McClellan, F. at communities. 127 972-73. of treatment. workers and threats like It is for this reason that extended Second, reading Shackney leads proper a jurisdiction encompass federal supports us to that it defendants’ conclude despite availability crimes state rem prosecution Shackney convictions. was a imprison edies for and false holding in violation peonage for in ment. In must be short statute read court Although only not to render the evil Con ex- but, did state that gress long ago sought to eradicate so as well, counterpart. he has Century its Twentieth isted the servant knows “where napping by compulsion. think this Romeo. We labor is exacted It also demon- “counsel, command, subsequent congressional strates that enact- did claim is meritless. He ments problems procure” were intended address interstitial of this induce commission [and] prior specific meaning enforcement crime within the his lieutenants statutes., predecessor 1583 was inade- §of arguably if and abet” 2 even he did not “aid § quate original pur- not because of its limited threats, supervision Rollins it. Booker’s pose only punished kidnap- but because warnings pointed to Wal- and Gibson and his per and his aiders and and did abettors not beating ters and Romeo after their clearly at the necessarily person reach the who exacted the sufficiently establish his involvement servitude. 333 F.2d at 482. circum- sustain stances, Under these this conviction. present not have need he government 4. Booker also claims that the failed See, g., scene e. Aaronson abduction. liability to establish his and abettor an aider States, 1949). 175 F.2d 43-44 Cir. 2, arguing under U.S.C. § that he did not beating personally participate in kid- transported prosecu- is not between continued service and free- material choice a, See, dom, kidnapping. g., tion e. even if the master has led him to State v. Barbour, 278 N.C. 180 S.E.2d may entail conse- believe choice (1971). Neither does federal statute at bad,” exceedingly quences that are here require transportation issue of the vic- 486, it also “it stated that would line, tims across a state because it derives ‘involuntary servitude’ as grotesque read authority its from the thirteenth amend- covering employee where an situation ment, prohibits which practices by guards,” physically was restrained incident to liberty throughout it to secure physical combinations of vio- “[v]arious country. The very purpose of lence, of more indications that would be protection was extend constitutional escape, used on attempt and of against kidnapping purpose for the of ex- legal threats to cause immediate confine- acting involuntary every servitude into ment, escape whether for the some other protection state where such previously was reason, have also been sufficient.” held Id. not available. See United States v. Wheel- The distinction Shackney drawn in is be- er, (D.Ariz.1918), aff’d, by just compelled tween the service the sort preva- of violence and of violence threats States, Clyatt v. United 197 U.S. at case, infringe statute, in this lent which 25 S.Ct. at 430-431. deportation and the lesser threat of to Mex- ico, the country native the workers in IV. Shackney, which the found “close to argue The defendants also reprehensible” line” “highly charge district court’s concern felony prosecution. insufficient to sustain a ing the meaning holding persons 333 F.2d at 486-87. slaves under deficient. 1583 was Ingalls, approv Indeed in cited with given virtually instruction identical to court, Ingalls, that used in Shackney compelling *6 correctly applicable concede states the law. force sufficient to victim hold the as a slave The district court’s additional comment on was the bring threat charge morals definition, context, read in did not in against the victim for conduct that occurred troduce an alternative the definition. It thirty-eight years some previously. Finally, merely made the definition more under for attempting workers need standable. The district court not and escape alleged without paying debts here should not have closely resemble those found sufficient would have to find that the defendants’ use uphold convictions of defendants accused of possibility force effectively denied holding migrant farm workers to involun escape availability to the victims. The Bibbs, servitude in United States v. shown, escape, history as the has 564 F.2d cert. discipline even a situation where denied, enforced, constantly is not does not terror L.Ed.2d 388 think the evidence preclude finding persons are held as of enforced compulsory service in this case Bibbs, United slaves. States v. established the intent of the defendants to 1168. The threat of or confine violence hold Walters and slaves. ment, by backed deeds as in this sufficiently case, similarly subjugate beings evidence suffices to human established will of another in of the thir kidnapped violation and carried amendment away teenth 1583. We con victims. Walters and Romeo migrant clude the conditions of the were forced against their will to enter a camp operated by in this case fall by van Rollins and and to Gibson return to within slavery prohibited well the ambit of camp, where were held contemplated Constitution and threat of force until rescued this statute. representatives of Farm Workers’ Legal Services. distance the victims were AFFIRMED. Gamble, pro W. se.

WIDENER, concurring: J. Judge, Circuit Baldree, Atty., Asst. J. Dist. Dal- Charles I in the result. concur las, Tex., respondents-appellees. for TATE, GEE, Before Circuit GARZA Judges.

TATE, Judge: Circuit Gamble, prisoner, a Texas plaintiff GAMBLE, Petitioner-Appellant, W. J. appeal timely from dismiss- filed a notice rights complaint, 42 his federal civil granted pro we se THOMAS, Sheriff, Carl and Unknown application appeal leave to in forma Officer, County, Lady White Dallas pauperis. Subsequently, after the records Texas, Respondents-Appellees. court, filed in counsel and briefs were No. 81-1143 opposing party brought to the notice Summary Calendar. May of this court that Gamble had died circumstances, 27, 1981. Under Appeals, Court of States personal representative where no has Fifth Circuit. party himself and no moved to substitute Unit A personal representative is shown have 43(a) pro- appointed, Fed.R.App.P. Aug. 26, 1981. repre- party “If the has no vides: deceased sentative, any may suggest the death party proceedings shall then be on the record and appeals may direct.” had as suggestion Accordingly, accepted we appellees by their counsel’s letter of of the 3,1981, appellant Gamble had June court, died. At direction of the from the Texas clerk’s office then obtained Department of Corrections a list *7 included the names and current ad- appellant of all members of the dresses (which family Gamble’s known them in- children, sisters, three two a brother- cluded in-law, cousin, and a friends with well as correspon- whom the decedent had been dence). clerk’s office July On listed, so wrote the individuals then each of pending appeal, informing them of the any person- inquiring of as to whether them representative desired to be substituted. requested be informed whether motion for July 1981 as to response No substitution would be made. has received this date that indicates any personal representative or member family prosecute of the decedent’s desires appeal. further this