United States v. George Mandoka
869 F.3d 448
6th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Mandoka, member of Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Nation, was convicted in federal court for multiple sex offenses against B.J., J.G., and E.B. committed on tribal land; the government sought to admit Rule 413 and Rule 404(b) evidence related to other sexual assaults and spousal abuse; the district court allowed most Rule 404(b) and all Rule 413 evidence and Hearsay concerns were addressed by limiting instructions; the district court dismissed Count 6 (J.G.’s abuse) for lack of federal jurisdiction but allowed J.G.’s Rule 413 evidence; he was sentenced to life plus concurrent terms; Mandoka appeals on evidentiary rulings and sufficiency of the notice and balancing under Rules 413 and 404(b).
- J.G., E.B., and B.J. were subjected to sexual abuse by Mandoka across years; J.G. testified to genital fondling in 1988, E.B. to abuse from 1995 to 1999 including porn viewing and finger penetration, and B.J. to night-time genitals touching, vaginal penetration by finger, and forcing masturbation; many acts occurred when the victims were minors and within the Isabella Reservation area; the government sought to use these acts as Rule 413 and to explain delayed reporting via Rule 404(b).
- The case proceeded to trial June 21, 2016; the government disclosed J.G.’s allegations and sought Rule 413 evidence, the district court admitted it; Mandoka was convicted on all counts and sentenced September 27, 2016; Mandoka timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 413 relevance of J.G. testimony | Mandoka argues J.G.’s abuse was dissimilar and not probative | Mandoka contends evidence is not relevant to E.B. and B.J. | Admissible; similar, probative of guilt under Rule 413. |
| Rule 413 notice compliance | Rule 413(b) required 15-day pretrial notice, which was not provided | Notice was effectively provided; good cause excused delay | Not reversible error; notice adequate under circumstances. |
| Rule 403 balancing for Rule 413 evidence | Testimony would be unfairly prejudicial | Prejudicial impact outweighed by probative value | Not unduly prejudicial; limiting instruction mitigated prejudice. |
| Rule 404(b) admissibility of spousal-abuse evidence | Spousal abuse evidence shows defendant’s disposition and why victims delayed reporting | Evidence improperly prejudicial and improper propensity evidence | Permissible to explain delayed reporting; proper purpose and balancing satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. LaVictor, 848 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2017) (admissibility of Rule 413 evidence; balancing under 403)
- United States v. Seymour, 468 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 2006) (relative probative value balancing under Rule 413/403)
- United States v. Whittington, 455 F.3d 736 (8th Cir. 2006) (low threshold for relevance under Rule 401/413)
- People v. Brown, 883 P.2d 949 (Cal. 1994) (delayed complaint context for sexual offenses; admissibility for context (state law))
- United States v. Plumman, 409 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2005) (admissibility to explain failure to report sexual abuse)
- United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460 (4th Cir. 1995) (admissibility of prior acts to explain reporting delay)
- United States v. Escarsega, 182 F. App’x 595 (8th Cir. 2006) (admissibility of prior acts to explain fear or reporting delay)