934 N.W.2d 433
Iowa2019Background
- Decedent Joshua Hutchinson was murdered in 2007; Kenneth Heard was later charged with first-degree murder and convicted in 2008. A postconviction ruling ordered a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
- At the retrial (2017) Heard’s defense was that Marco "Brown" committed the murder at Deland Stanley’s direction; Brown had testified at the first trial blaming Heard but in the retrial he asserted a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege in a pretrial deposition and said he would refuse to answer any questions at trial.
- Heard moved to compel Brown to testify and to force him to invoke the Fifth Amendment in front of the jury so jurors would infer Brown’s guilt; the district court denied the motion, relying on State v. Bedwell and permitting Brown to assert a blanket privilege outside the jury’s presence.
- Brown did not testify at trial; Heard was again convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. The court of appeals reversed, ordering a new trial on compulsory-process grounds; the State sought further review.
- The Iowa Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals, affirmed the district court: a witness may properly assert a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege and a defendant cannot compel a witness to invoke the privilege before the jury to create an adverse inference; the court also affirmed denial of a new-trial motion on weight-of-the-evidence grounds and rejected an unpreserved Alleyne/age challenge to the LWOP sentence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Heard's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a witness who validly asserts a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege may be compelled to take the stand and invoke the privilege before the jury | Blanket privilege valid; Bedwell forbids forcing invocation before jury because jurors may draw improper inferences | Heard wanted Brown to "take the Fifth" before jury so jurors would infer Brown’s guilt | Court affirmed Bedwell: trial court properly allowed blanket assertion and properly refused to compel invocation in front of jury |
| Whether denying Heard the chance to force Brown to invoke the Fifth violated Heard’s Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process or confrontation | No; when witness properly invokes blanket privilege, compulsory-process yields and no Confrontation Clause violation occurs because witness does not testify | Compulsory-process violation because Brown’s live invocation would support Heard’s defense by implicating Brown | Held no violation: privilege trumps compulsory process here; no confrontation violation because Brown did not testify |
| Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence such that a new trial was required | Evidence supported conviction (witness credibility, admissions, conduct after the shooting) | Evidence preponderated for Brown as perpetrator; verdict against weight of evidence | District court did not abuse discretion denying new trial; weight of evidence supports conviction |
| Whether jury must find Heard was an adult before court may impose life without parole (Alleyne-based challenge) | Age not an element here; defendant did not preserve dispute about being a minor | Alleyne requires jury finding that increases mandatory punishment (so jury should find age) | Court assumed juries should decide disputed age but denied relief because Heard failed to preserve issue; affirmed LWOP sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bedwell, 417 N.W.2d 66 (Iowa 1987) (adopts rule forbidding calling a witness solely to have them invoke the Fifth before the jury)
- State v. McDowell, 247 N.W.2d 499 (Iowa 1976) (upholds blanket Fifth-privilege assertion where entire subject matter is incriminating)
- Bowles v. United States, 439 F.2d 536 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (en banc) (rule that juries may not draw inferences from a witness’s invocation of the Fifth)
- Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1951) (standard for when answers would be self-incriminating)
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (U.S. 1965) (prohibition on commenting on defendant’s silence)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013) (fact increasing mandatory minimum must be found by a jury)
- State v. Sweet, 879 N.W.2d 811 (Iowa 2016) (juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life without parole under Iowa Constitution)
- State v. Kellogg, 385 N.W.2d 558 (Iowa 1986) (waiver of Fifth Amendment privilege is limited to the proceeding in which waiver occurred)