Sentencing Fight: Prosecutors Seek 15–20 Years For OneTaste Leaders Based On Uncharged Conduct

Federal prosecutors are urging a judge to impose lengthy prison terms—roughly 15 to 20 years—on OneTaste founders and leaders Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz, in part by relying on alleged conduct for which the women were not charged or convicted. Critics call the request an overreach that rests on a contested legal theory and disputed evidence.

Background

OneTaste, founded in 2004, promoted a sexual self-help practice called orgasmic meditation (OM), a partnered, 15-minute clitoral-stimulation exercise that members were encouraged to practice regularly. In June, Daedone, who co-founded OneTaste, and Cherwitz, a longtime employee and former head of sales, were convicted on one count each of conspiracy to commit forced labor. Both have remained jailed since the conviction after being denied release pending sentencing.

Conviction, But No Underlying Counts

The indictment alleged a decade-long conspiracy to commit forced labor, but prosecutors did not bring underlying substantive forced-labor counts. Instead, the government advanced a novel theory that certain ideas and forms of social pressure—described by prosecutors as “harmful” teachings and social exclusion—functioned as coercive mechanisms that could sustain forced labor.

Probation Report And Recommended Sentences

In an August 21 Presentence Investigation Report, the U.S. Probation Office recommended 188 months (about 15.5 years) for Cherwitz and 235–240 months (about 19.5–20 years) for Daedone. Those ranges reflect multiple sentencing enhancements that, critics note, are premised on conduct that was not charged or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Use Of Uncharged Conduct At Sentencing

Federal sentencing practice allows judges to consider uncharged or even acquitted conduct when setting a term, provided the judge finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct occurred. The probation office recommended enhancements based on allegations that the defendants committed substantive forced labor and criminal sexual abuse—claims neither defendant was tried on.

Defense objection: Defense lawyers argue that relying on such uncharged allegations to escalate punishment violates the defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and their due-process protections, and amounts to a “bait and switch” in which a narrow conspiracy charge is converted into a broader sex-crimes case without the government proving essential elements like intent and lack of consent.

Allegations And Credibility Issues

Prosecutors never alleged traditional forms of forced-labor coercion such as physical force, threats, blackmail, passport confiscation, or abduction. The trial featured credibility disputes, including a witness who admitted fabricating journal entries presented as evidence, and allegations that FBI agents pressured some witnesses to identify as victims.

Prosecutors’ Position

Federal prosecutors say it is lawful to use uncharged or unconvicted relevant conduct at sentencing if a judge determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct occurred and the final sentence remains within the statutory range authorized by the jury’s verdict. They argue prior case law supports this practice and that the probation office applied appropriate guidelines.

Defense Arguments And Support For Defendants

Defense filings emphasize mitigating factors: the defendants did not orchestrate physical violence, did not run a criminal enterprise in the manner typical of extreme abuse cases, and at times taught a practice the government acknowledged as legitimate. More than 200 letters were submitted in support of Daedone, including from criminal-justice advocate Van Jones and clergy, therapists, and program participants who praised her charitable work.

What’s Next

Sentencing was postponed from September; prosecutors were ordered to submit final sentencing memoranda by December 10. The court must now decide how to weigh disputed factual findings at sentencing and whether enhancements based on uncharged sexual-abuse and forced-labor allegations are appropriate—an outcome with broader implications for how courts use uncharged conduct in federal sentencing.