United States v. Boyd
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7046
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Boyd was convicted of accessory after the fact to a carjacking that caused serious bodily injury and death, and of misprision of a felony under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4.
- Davidson was identified as the carjacker; Boyd provided information and aided Davidson to avoid arrest after learning of the crimes.
- A videotaped interview in which Boyd discussed Davidson’s statements was admitted, with the district court treating the statements as non-hearsay to prove Boyd’s knowledge.
- Medical examiner testimony described the brutal crimes against Christian and Newsom, including sexual assault and methods of death, which Boyd argued should be limited or stipulated.
- The indictment charged the two counts in a single count each, and Boyd challenged duplicity and related evidentiary rulings, including the medical examiner testimony and the refusal to accept a stipulation.
- Prosecutors’ closing statements and a separate argument about vouching were challenged on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct, with the court applying standard de novo/plain-error review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility and purpose of Davidson's statements | Boyd: statements are hearsay; Confrontation Clause violation. | Boyd: statements are non-hearsay, probative of Boyd's knowledge. | Statements admitted as non-hearsay to prove knowledge; no Confrontation Clause error. |
| Duplicity of indictment | Boyd: counts are duplicitous by conjunctive charging of SBH and death in one count. | Boyd: one count per crime; not duplicitous under Braverman/Campbell. | Indictment not duplicitous; single counts properly charged. |
| Medical examiner testimony as prejudicial versus probative | Boyd: gruesome testimony should be excluded due to prejudice from duplicitous framing. | Mc: testimony probative of carjacking resulting in SBH and death; not unduly prejudicial. | Testimony properly admitted; probative and not substantially outweighed by prejudice. |
| Offer to stipulate to elements | Boyd: stipulation should be accepted to avoid gruesome testimony. | Govt. may present its evidence; stipulation not required; admissibility unaffected. | District court did not abuse discretion; government may prove elements by its own evidence. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments | Boyd: comments inflamed passions and improperly stressed victims and grave outcomes. | Comments acceptable; not plain error given strength of evidence. | Some remarks improper but not reversible; no plain error given overall trial fairness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49 (1942) (conspiracy is the crime; single count not duplicitous)
- Campbell v. United States, 279 F.3d 392 (2002) (conspiracy as a single agreement; not duplicitous)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (prosecution may introduce its own evidence; stipulations limited)
- Bedford v. Collins, 567 F.3d 225 (2009) (prosecutor may appeal to jurors' sense of justice; inappropriate but not fatal)
- United States v. Johnson, 71 F.3d 539 (1995) (statements offered to prove knowledge; non-hearsay)
- United States v. Mays, 69 F.3d 116 (1995) (statements offered to prove knowledge; non-hearsay)
- United States v. Gibson, 409 F.3d 325 (2005) (testimonials and non-testimonial statements; Crawford framework)
- United States v. Reynolds, 715 F.2d 99 (1983) (distinguishes non-truth-proving statements from hearsay)