Fighting Government Weaponization
We fight the weaponization of justice by exposing lawfare abuses and standing with those unjustly targeted, offering support to victims and their families when a politicized system fails them.
Case Snapshot
Full name | Nicole Daedone |
|---|---|
Display name | Nicole Daedone |
Home state | New York |
Federal district | Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn |
District court case | United States v. Cherwitz and Daedone, 1:23-cr-00146 (DG) |
Appellate case | United States v. Cherwitz (Daedone), No. 26-944 (2d Cir.) |
Type of case | Criminal / forced labor conspiracy |
Disposition | Convicted June 9, 2025; sentenced March 30, 2026 |
Sentence | 108 months in federal prison |
Financial orders | $12 million forfeiture; $887,877.64 restitution to seven victims |
Core WW issue | Whether the prosecution and sentencing fairly applied forced-labor conspiracy law where the alleged coercion was primarily psychological, emotional, financial, and sexual rather than physical confinement |
Case Overview
Federal prosecutors charged Nicole Daedone, founder and former CEO of OneTaste, and former head of sales Rachel Cherwitz with one count of conspiracy to commit forced labor. The government alleged that, from approximately 2006 through May 2018, the defendants used psychological, emotional, financial, sexual, and social pressure to obtain labor and services from OneTaste members.
OneTaste promoted orgasmic meditation and other sexuality-focused wellness practices. The government argued that certain members were made dependent on the organization through debt, surveillance, isolation, manipulation, and threats of financial, social, spiritual, or reputational harm. The defense disputed that characterization and emphasized that the witnesses were not physically confined and retained the ability to leave.
After a five-week trial, a federal jury convicted Daedone and Cherwitz on June 9, 2025. Because the charge was conspiracy, the jury was instructed that it did not need to find that Daedone actually forced anyone to perform labor; the agreement to commit forced labor was itself the charged crime. The court separately instructed that serious harm can be physical or nonphysical, including psychological, financial, or reputational harm.
On March 30, 2026, Judge Diane Gujarati sentenced Daedone to 108 months in federal prison. The court also imposed a $12 million forfeiture money judgment and awarded $887,877.64 in restitution to seven victims. Daedone has appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Case No. 26-944.
Why Weaponization Watch Supports This Case
Weaponization Watch does not minimize the forced-labor conviction, the testimony of the women who described coercion and abuse, or the government’s responsibility to prosecute genuine exploitation. Federal forced-labor law expressly recognizes that coercion can be psychological, financial, reputational, or otherwise nonphysical.
Weaponization Watch supports careful review of this case because it tests how far those concepts can extend in a criminal conspiracy prosecution involving an unconventional wellness community. The defense has raised questions about the line between intense social or psychological pressure and criminal coercion, the handling of allegedly stolen privileged corporate material, the scope of conspiracy liability, and the use of alleged uncharged conduct at sentencing. These issues deserve transparent appellate review without requiring Weaponization Watch to declare guilt or innocence.
Key Public-Interest Questions
How should courts distinguish criminal “serious harm” from intense social, psychological, spiritual, or financial pressure in a community whose members were not physically confined?
Did the conspiracy instructions give the jury a sufficiently clear framework for deciding whether Daedone knowingly agreed to obtain labor through prohibited coercive means?
How should the fact that conspiracy liability does not require proof that the substantive forced-labor offense was completed affect the level of evidence required to prove intent and agreement?
What role did allegedly stolen or privileged OneTaste corporate materials play in the investigation, and what remedies are available when defendants challenge the government’s use of such material?
Did the trial fairly allow the defense to place evidence of members’ ability to leave and their contemporaneous conduct before the jury?
Was the 108-month sentence, together with $12 million in forfeiture and nearly $888,000 in restitution, proportionate to the offense of conviction and the conduct found by the court?
Case Documentation Note
This case involves a forced-labor conviction, allegations of sexual abuse and psychological coercion, and testimony concerning serious harm to victims. Weaponization Watch does not minimize the conviction or the experiences described by witnesses. This file documents legal and due-process questions raised by the defense and public record and does not declare guilt or innocence.
Timeline
Date / Period | Event |
|---|---|
2006–May 2018 | The government alleged that Daedone, Cherwitz, and others participated in a forced-labor conspiracy involving OneTaste members. |
June 6, 2023 | The federal indictment was unsealed in the Eastern District of New York, charging Daedone and Cherwitz with forced labor conspiracy. |
May–June 2025 | Daedone and Cherwitz were tried before Judge Diane Gujarati in a five-week jury trial in Brooklyn. |
June 9, 2025 | The jury convicted both defendants of forced labor conspiracy. |
March 30, 2026 | Daedone was sentenced to 108 months in prison. The court imposed a $12 million forfeiture money judgment and $887,877.64 in restitution to seven victims. |
April 2026 | Daedone filed a criminal appeal in the Second Circuit, docketed as No. 26-944. |
Current | The direct appeal remains pending in the Second Circuit. |
Key Concerns
Nonphysical coercion and serious harm: Forced-labor law can reach psychological, financial, reputational, and other nonphysical forms of harm. The defense argued that the witnesses were not physically restrained and could leave; the government argued that dependency, debt, surveillance, isolation, sexual pressure, and threats of social or financial ruin made that formal freedom insufficient.
Conspiracy without a completed substantive offense: The jury was instructed that it did not need to find that Daedone actually forced anyone to perform labor because the charged offense was conspiracy. This recognized feature of conspiracy law makes the clarity of the agreement, intent, and coercion instructions especially important.
Privileged corporate material: The defense alleged that the FBI obtained material taken from OneTaste that was marked attorney-client privileged and later challenged the government’s handling and use of it.
Witness choice and coercive environment: The defense emphasized evidence that participants could physically leave and challenged whether the government proved the level of serious harm required by the statute.
Sentencing based on broader alleged conduct: Supporters object to sentencing arguments involving alleged sexual abuse and other conduct that was not separately charged or submitted to the jury.
Sentence and financial penalties: Daedone received 108 months in prison, a $12 million forfeiture judgment, and $887,877.64 in restitution. The severity and basis of those combined penalties are appropriate subjects for transparent appellate and public review.
Why This Case Matters
Forced-labor laws were written to reach coercion that does not depend on chains, locked doors, or physical violence. That breadth is important because exploitation can be psychological and financial. It also makes clear limiting principles essential when criminal law is applied to unconventional communities, workplaces, and belief systems.
Conspiracy law increases the stakes because criminal liability can attach to an agreement even when the jury is not required to find that the substantive offense was completed. In that setting, precise instructions about intent, agreement, serious harm, and the defendant’s knowledge are critical safeguards.
The case also raises institutional questions about the government’s treatment of potentially privileged material, the scope of conspiracy liability, and the use of alleged uncharged conduct at sentencing. Whatever the ultimate appellate outcome, clear rules in these areas protect victims, defendants, and public confidence in legitimate trafficking enforcement.
Document Vault
Document | Source / Description |
|---|---|
DOJ Indictment Release | Eastern District of New York release dated June 6, 2023 announcing the forced-labor conspiracy charge. |
DOJ Conviction Release | Eastern District of New York release dated June 9, 2025 reporting the jury verdict after a five-week trial. |
DOJ Sentencing Release | Eastern District of New York release dated March 30, 2026 reporting the 108-month sentence, forfeiture, and restitution. |
Second Circuit Appeal Docket | United States v. Cherwitz (Daedone), No. 26-944, concerning Daedone’s direct criminal appeal. |
