by Jacqueline Tamburrino
Introduction
Human trafficking represents one of the most challenging crimes to prosecute due to its secretive nature and the careful consideration needed when collecting evidence from traumatized victims. In New Jersey, prosecutors face a troubling pattern, illustrating that most human trafficking cases result in second degree convictions rather than first degree charges, despite the severity of many trafficking operations. The root of this prosecutorial pattern lies in New Jersey’s statutory framework under N.J.S.A. 2C:13-8, which creates fundamentally different evidentiary requirements for each degree. The language and elements that need to be met under the NJ statutes for this crime make one degree harder to prove than the other. Under a first-degree human trafficking conviction, the statute requires many elements, including the element of coercion, while a second-degree conviction is based on procurement. These statutes were revised in 2024 to increase penalties and allow victims to seek higher damages. Under the first-degree offense a sentence of up to 20 years to life imprisonment and a $25,000 fine is authorized.
Second degree convictions result in a period of parole ineligibility of one-third to one-half of the term of imprisonment imposed or three years, a fine of not less than $15,000, and, upon a finding of guilt or entry of a guilty plea, the court may direct any agency to revoke the defendant’s business or professional license. Considering the penalties, fines, recidivism rates, and the goal of deterring future crimes of this nature, society would expect prosecutors to pursue and obtain first degree human trafficking convictions. It is important to determine What legal and evidentiary hurdles New Jersey prosecutors face in obtaining first and second-degree human trafficking convictions, and how do these challenges affect the overall success of prosecutions under the state’s human trafficking statute? New Jersey’s current legal framework creates a systematic bias toward second degree prosecutions through plea bargaining practices, restrictive legal precedents, and insufficient evidentiary standards for proving coercion. While this approach may increase conviction rates, it undermines the statute’s deterrent effect and allows serious traffickers to receive inadequate sentences, potentially increasing recidivism and public safety risks.
Understanding New Jerseys’ Human Trafficking Statute
To better understand why New Jersey prosecutors, pursue second degree convictions over first degree charges more frequently, we must examine the different statues explained in N.J.S.A. 2C:13-8. The statute establishes a two-tiered system that breaks apart offenses based on distinct elements and requirements. First degree human trafficking requires prosecutors to prove four elements. (1) the defendant knowingly held, recruited, lured, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, or obtained another person, (2) the defendant used force, fraud, or coercion to accomplish this act, (3) the defendant acted with the purpose of engaging the victim in sexual activity or labor services, and (4) the victim was actually subjected to such activity or services.
The key element and most challenging is coercion, which is defined in the New Jersey statute as physical restraint, serious threats of harm, abuse of legal process, destruction of identification documents, debt bondage, withholding of drugs from an addicted person, and other methods of maintaining dominance and control over victims. Second degree human trafficking contains different elements that exclude the coercion requirement entirely. Prosecutors only need to establish that, (1) the defendant knowingly benefited financially or received anything of value, and (2) the defendant participated in a venture engaged in human trafficking activities. The procurement element, rather than coercion, focuses on profiting from trafficking operations without requiring any proof of coercion against victims. The 2024 statutory revisions, increased penalties and victim remedies, aiming at maintaining the structural division of these degrees. This clear separation creates vastly different evidentiary burdens that directly impact New Jersey prosecutor’s strategy and case outcomes.
Evidentiary Framework Under N.J.S.A. 2C:13-8
Although first- and second-degree human trafficking offenses fall under the same statutory provision, they impose markedly different evidentiary demands on prosecutors. A first-degree conviction requires proof of coercion, an element that often depends on victim testimony describing psychological manipulation, threats, or exploitation. On the other hand, second-degree trafficking centers on the defendant’s financial benefit and participation in a trafficking operation, allowing prosecutors to rely mostly on objective evidence such as digital communications and financial records. This distinction is what shapes the prosecutions strategy. When coercion must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the success of a case often relies on a victim’s ability to testify consistently and credibly about traumatic experiences. Procurement-based charges, however, empower prosecutors to build cases around documentary and transactional evidence that is less vulnerable to credibility attacks and constitutional challenges.
Why Coercion is Hard to Prove
The coercion element required for first degree convictions in New Jersey challenges prosecutors with obstacles that require intense preparation and understanding of the statute in practice. Contrary from other violent crimes where physical evidence like objects, recorded injuries, or physical materials can verify criminal conduct, human trafficking relies heavily on psychological tactics that leave no physical trace.
Human traffickers manipulate victims using tactics like isolation, emotional abuse, threats against family members, exploiting immigration status, and even addiction vulnerabilities. All these methods that are extremely difficult to document and conform through material evidence. Prosecutors face the ultimate challenge of relying almost entirely on victim statements and testimony to prove the key element of coercion. Trafficking victims are often hesitant or unable to give clear, consistent, and in-depth accounts that are necessary to meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Victims may fear retaliation against themselves or their families, experience flashbacks, feel distrust towards law enforcement due to previous negative experiences, or even develop psychological attachments to their traffickers. Defense attorneys take advantage of these testimonial challenges to create reasonable doubt and argue that any participation was voluntary or that the relationship was consensual.
Without the confirmation of physical evidence or documentation, prosecutors ask juries to convict based solely on the word of victims whose credibility can be easily challenged, making first degree convictions exceptionally difficult to secure even in cases where severe trafficking clearly occurred. This element is also tied heavily to the U.S. Constitution. Leppard Law shared, “In the realm of federal sex crimes, coercion and enticement charges hold a significant place, often leading to severe legal consequences. These charges are primarily governed by federal law, aiming to address and curb the manipulation or luring of individuals into illegal sexual activities. Understanding these charges requires a deep dive into their definitions, implications, and the legal landscape surrounding them (Leppard Law)”. This crime and specifically the element of coercion is such a high penalty due to its roots in anti-slavery efforts. The severity of the penalties and meaning behind this element, is the leading force of the challenges prosecutors face when compelling the jury to believe the defendant met it.
Why Procurement is Easier to Prove in Practice
Unlike the testimonial challenges that come with first degree coercion cases, second degree human trafficking prosecutions articulate their arguments for procurement from concrete evidence that significantly strengthens their position. The procurement element requires only proof that the defendant knowingly benefited financially from participating in trafficking. Prosecution can establish this through digital and financial records instead of relying solely on victim collaboration.
Trafficking operations today generally come with extensive digital footprints that include texts detailing victim transportation, online advertisements marketing sex services, electronic payment records on platforms like Venmo CashApp, Zelle, bank deposits illustrating financial profits from trafficking activities, and hotel or rental receipts documenting where trafficking took place. This form of evidence provides the jury with clear proof of the defendant’s participation and financial benefit without requiring solely on the jury to assess the reliability of traumatized victims or in understanding the psychological components of the coercion element. Prosecutors can build compelling second-degree cases by presenting these forms of evidence like online records and transactions that provide a story to the defendant’s role in the operation and removing the need for the grueling labor that goes into collecting a traumatized victim’s testimony.
Law enforcement can verify digital evidence through camera footage, witness statements, and even employees at establishments on record. The concrete nature of procurement evidence does not only make cases easier to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but also allows prosecutors to secure these convictions quickly, with less resources, and with minimal pressure and mental effect on the victims who may want to avoid the trial process entirely or give limited testimony about their experiences.
Case Studies Demonstrating the Prosecutorial Pattern
Legal Research of recent New Jersey human trafficking prosecutions show a disturbing pattern where prosecutors consistently pursue second degree convictions even in cases involving clear conduct that arguably meets first degree elements. The case of State v. Raul Romero-Castillo (2014) exemplifies this troubling trend. Jose Cruz Romero-Flores and his four partners operated an in-depth network of brothels across New Jersey and New York, smuggling women from Mexico and Latin America through false advertising for domestic work, forcing them to provide se work to over 100 clients per week at $30 per act. They had strict quotas and moved victims through a variety of locations to prevent escape. Even with overwhelming evidence of coercion, including deception about employment, debt bondage through smuggling fees, movement restriction, and quota enforcement, prosecutors charged the defendants only with second degree conspiracy to facilitate human trafficking and third-degree promoting prostitution. The defendants received between three and five years in state prison, very lenient sentences considering the number of victims and severity of their scheme. Law enforcement seized evidence including about $5,800 in cash, documents verifying identification, cell phones, laptops, and registrations detailing women’s names and service schedules, yet prosecutors chose to pursue procurement charges rather than pursuing first degree coercion charges.
This decision becomes even more concerning when contrasted with State v. Gardner (2024), where Ashley Gardner received first degree human trafficking convictions for recruiting and transporting a seventeen-year-old teen from New York to New Jersey, posting advertisements, setting up hotel encounters, and controlling the victim’s financial profits. The distinguishing detail in this case was the victim being a minor, which New Jersey courts have routinely recognized as meeting the elements to first degree charges regardless of other circumstances. The difference between these cases reveals that New Jersey prosecutors rely heavily on the age of the victim to pursue first degree charges, while adult victim cases, even those involving clear coercion, smuggling, and large-scale operations, result in second degree convictions.
The case of Jose Flores v. NJ State Parole Board (2016) displays the public safety consequences of this legal pattern. Flores, who pled guilty to second degree human trafficking and received only five years imprisonment, became eligible for parole after serving minimal time. Although the parole board denied his release due to reasonable expectation of parole violation, the case shows how second-degree convictions create opportunities for early release that would not exist under first degree sentences. First degree charges carry twenty years to life imprisonment. These cases collectively demonstrate that New Jersey’s statute for trafficking and prosecution’s strategy create a bias toward second degree convictions based on procurement evidence, even when strong evidence of coercion exists, reserving first degree charges almost exclusively for cases involving minor victims or the most extreme circumstances where coercion is undeniable.
Policy Implications
New Jersey’s current trafficking framework raises serious policy concerns about whether the state can consistently match charging outcomes to the severity of trafficking conduct. Since first-degree trafficking requires proof of coercion, often a psychological and relational form of control, prosecutors may avoid first-degree charges when the evidence depends heavily on traumatized victims’ testimony and credibility assessments. In practice, this creates an incentive to pursue second-degree procurement cases grounded in financial benefit and participation in a trafficking venture, which are more easily supported by records such as, digital communications, payments, hotel receipts, bank transfers. While this strategy may improve conviction rates, it risks under-charging serious traffickers, weakening deterrence, and allowing offenders to face shorter periods of incapacitation and earlier release. This mismatch between statutory severity and evidentiary sufficiency can undermine the statute’s public-safety purpose.
Any reform must preserve defendants’ constitutional rights while recognizing that trafficking prosecutions often require courts and juries to interpret trauma, credibility, and coercive control. These are areas where traditional evidentiary expectations can unintentionally disadvantage victims. Even well-intentioned, victim-centered approaches can produce unintended harms if the system responds by expanding surveillance or control over victims rather than supporting them. As Jennifer Lynne Musto warns, “laws and court interpretations of trauma intensify the supervision of youth and families” (Musto). This concern matters for New Jersey because reforms aimed at making coercion easier to prove should not translate into more intrusive or punitive oversight of victims. The policy goal should be a framework that protects due process, reduces traumatization, and permits factfinders to accurately understand coercion without equating trauma symptoms with unreliability.
Recommendations and Reforms
New Jersey should clarify statutory language to better capture how coercion operates in modern trafficking cases, particularly coercion that is psychological, economic, or dependency-based rather than physically violent. A clearer statutory definition that explicitly includes coercive control patterns, such as isolation, threats to family, exploitation of immigration vulnerability, or manipulation of addiction would help jurors understand coercion without requiring prosecutors to rely on a narrow force-based narrative. The statute should also more clearly distinguish procurement and participation in a trafficking venture to prevent under-charging conduct that involves coercion but is prosecuted as mere financial benefit.
New Jersey should expand victim-witness protections to reduce traumatization and increase the likelihood of sustained cooperation. Options include greater use of victim advocates, structured support before and during testimony, and court-managed limits on irrelevant or harassing cross-examination. The U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) states, “A trauma-informed approach improves both victim participation and case outcomes by ensuring that investigative and prosecutorial practices account for the neurobiological and psychological effects of trauma on memory, behavior, and testimony” (OVC). The state should also invest in wraparound services (housing, counseling, immigration/legal support, addiction treatment) so victims are stabilized enough to participate in prosecution without increasing their risk of retaliation or traumatization.
Specialized training is essential because trafficking cases frequently hinge on coercion dynamics unfamiliar to jurors and even legal professionals. Training should focus on coercive control, trauma effects on memory and disclosure, and how digital evidence intersects with victim testimony. Prosecutors need tools to build coercion narratives ethically and effectively, while judges need guidance for trauma-sensitive courtroom management.
New Jersey should strengthen coordination with federal partners in trafficking investigations, especially when networks cross state lines or involve organized criminal ventures. Federal agencies can provide investigative resources, digital forensics capacity, and expertise that help corroborate coercion without over-relying on victim testimony. Coordinated strategies also help ensure that the most serious trafficking conduct is charged in a way that reflects both culpability and evidentiary strength.
Conclusion
New Jersey’s human trafficking statute reflects a strong legislative commitment to punishing and deterring one of the most serious crimes against human dignity. However, the structure of N.J.S.A. 2C:13-8 creates a practical imbalance in prosecution outcomes. The evidentiary burden required to prove coercion for first-degree human trafficking, particularly when coercion is psychological rather than physical, makes such charges significantly harder to sustain than second-degree procurement offenses grounded in financial and digital evidence. As a result, prosecutors routinely pursue second-degree convictions even in cases involving conduct that aligns with the most severe forms of trafficking.
This prosecutorial pattern has meaningful consequences. While procurement-based prosecutions increase conviction rates, they risk under-penalizing traffickers, weakening the statute’s deterrent effect, and allowing serious offenders earlier opportunities for release. The case studies examined in this paper demonstrate that first-degree convictions are largely reserved for cases involving minor victims, while adult victim cases, despite clear evidence of coercive control, are frequently resolved at the second-degree level. This outcome reflects not a lack of trafficking severity, but a statutory framework that prioritizes evidentiary certainty over proportional accountability.
Reform, however, must be approached carefully. Any effort to address these disparities must preserve defendants’ constitutional due process rights while acknowledging the unique challenges faced by trafficking victims. Clarifying statutory definitions of coercion, expanding trauma-informed evidentiary practices, strengthening victim-witness protections, and providing specialized training for legal actors would allow courts and juries to better evaluate coercion without penalizing victims for trauma-related inconsistencies. Increased coordination between
state and federal authorities can further ensure that the most serious trafficking conduct is charged and punished appropriately. Ultimately, New Jersey’s ability to combat human trafficking effectively depends on aligning statutory severity with evidentiary realities. By refining its legal and evidentiary framework, the state can better ensure that human trafficking prosecutions are both fair and effective, holding traffickers fully accountable while protecting the rights and dignity of those most harmed by these crimes.