United States v. Jacques
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13970
2d Cir.2012Background
- Government indicts Jacques for kidnapping, rape, and murder of a 12-year-old; Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty included aggravating-factors allegations (six prior rapes; obstruction of justice plan)
- District court struck J2, J3, J4 rape allegations from the Notice and suppressed obstruction evidence as Sixth Amendment violation
- A2 rape allegation admissible; J1 rape admissible; J4 adjudicated on lewd and lascivious conduct (plea) but not rape identity
- Government appeals, challenging the exclusions and seeking broader admission
- Court affirms excluding J2 and J3, vacates/remands J4 ruling due to adjudication, and vacates suppression of obstruction evidence
- Ruling emphasizes § 3593© broader admissibility standard and limits when evidence is unreliable or unduly prejudicial
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3593© allows excluding remote unadjudicated prior acts | Coffin contends exclusions were improper non-admissible | Jacques argues probative value outweighs prejudice; district court abused discretion | Affirmed as to J2 and J3 exclusions (within discretion) |
| Whether J4 allegations were properly excluded given adjudication | Government argues adjudication exists; probative value high | Exclusion justified by remoteness and reliability concerns | Vacated and remanded to reconsider in light of adjudication (plea) |
| Whether evidence of obstruction of justice was admissible under Sixth Amendment | Obstruction plan relevant to character and foreseeability | Garcia actions did not constitute an facilitating interrogation; no Sixth Amendment violation | Vacated the suppression; the government did not elicited incriminating statements; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fell, 531 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2008) (exclusionary discretion for § 3593© evidence; reliability/prejudice balance)
- United States v. Pepin, 514 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2008) (admissibility of aggravating evidence; broad discretion to exclude)
- Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436 (1986) ( Sixth Amendment requires active elicitation; not mere listening by informant)
- Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162 (2001) (separate investigations allowed; no Sixth Amendment violation when unrelated offense investigated)
- McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (1991) (right to counsel applies to custodial interrogation; offense-specific)
- Moulton, 474 U.S. 159 (1986) (limits on Fifth/ Sixth Amendment interplay; separate-offense investigations)