United States v. Dean Wilkens, 742 F.3d 354

Wilkens was convicted by jury of four counts of aggravated sexual abuse; district court sentenced him to 360 months.
The offenses occurred on the Red Lake Indian Reservation; victims included D.J., T.J., and L.B., who were grandchildren of Wilkens and Jourdain.
Nine grandchildren in the household were evaluated by FACNM; D.J., T.J., and L.B. disclosed sexual abuse by Wilkens.
Count 5 (abusive sexual conduct involving L.B.) was dismissed during trial, after which Wilkens sought severance of remaining counts.
Wilkens challenged multiple trial rulings, including severance, admission/exclusion of evidence, and handling of witness testimony.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed Wilkens’s conviction and addressed each challenged issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was severance required for the counts?	Wilkens argues joint trial prejudiced him.	Joinder was proper; evidence would be admissible in severed trials.	No reversible prejudice; denial of severance affirmed.
Was Exhibit #9 (L.B. interview) properly withdrawn after Count 5 dismissals?	Evidence remained relevant and probative.	Exhibit #9 became marginally relevant or prejudicial after dismissal.	Court did not abuse discretion; withdrawal upheld.
Was Jourdain's testimony properly struck after invoking Fifth Amendment rights?	Striking testimony deprived Wilkens of relevant credibility evidence.	Court properly struck collateral details and prevented tainting by Fifth Amendment invocation.	No abuse of discretion; testimony properly struck.
Were relevancy objections to past sexual abuse evidence proper?	Prior abuse by others explains victims’ knowledge and should be admitted.	Such evidence is irrelevant or prejudicial beyond the remaining counts.	Court properly sustained relevancy objections.
Was Wilkens denied a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense by excluding evidence of strained relations with the victims’ fathers?	Strained-relations evidence could show motive to fabricate.	Evidence was speculative or repetitive; pretrial rulings not final; no objection at trial.	No due process violation; plain error none.

Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (joint trial prejudice standard)
United States v. Crouch, 46 F.3d 871 (8th Cir. 1995) (abuse of discretion for severance)
United States v. Brown, 653 F.3d 656 (8th Cir. 2011) (evidence of joined offenses admissible; Rule 413)
United States v. Tyndall, 263 F.3d 848 (8th Cir. 2001) (Rule 413 admissibility in sexual assaults)
Hogan v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 812 F.2d 409 (8th Cir. 1987) (court assesses 403 balancing; evidentiary discretion)
Smith v. United States, 331 F.2d 265 (8th Cir. 1964) (testimony stricken when truth cannot be tested)
Brierly v. United States, 501 F.2d 1024 (8th Cir. 1974) (direct testimony after Fifth Amendment invocation; cross-examination scope)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause; right to confront witnesses)
Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) (meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense)
Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) (due process limits on exclusion of defense evidence)