United States v. Jarrett James
20-10122
| 9th Cir. | Sep 3, 2021Background:
- Jarrett James was convicted by jury of aggravated sexual abuse, abusive sexual contact, and sexual abuse of a minor and sentenced to concurrent life terms plus 180 months and lifetime supervised release.
- Dr. Wendy Dutton testified for the government regarding characteristics of abused children and related research; defense challenged admissibility under Daubert and Rule 403.
- Nurse practitioner Carol Gora examined two child victims, testified about their disclosures and physical exams, and identified James as the abuser; defense sought a dual-role jury instruction and objected to hearsay.
- Testimony was admitted that James previously molested his sister (TJ); the government relied on Federal Rule of Evidence 414 and a Rule 403 balancing using LeMay factors.
- The district court excluded witness Carli Moncher after she invoked the Fifth Amendment; James also raised sentencing testimony limitations and a constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 1153.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed on all issues, rejecting Daubert, instructional, hearsay-exception, Rule 414, Fifth Amendment invocation, sentencing, and § 1153 challenges; any error found was harmless.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. Dutton (Daubert/403) | Dutton lacked reliable methodology; court failed to make explicit gatekeeper finding | Dutton qualified by experience; testimony limited and relevant | Admission affirmed; court made explicit reliability finding; no Rule 403 abuse |
| Dual-role jury instruction for Ms. Gora | Gora gave hybrid lay/expert testimony; instruction required | Any error harmless; Gora not qualified as expert and defense cross-examined | No reversible error; instructional omission harmless |
| Admission of victims’ statements to Gora (Rule 803(4)) | Statements were not for medical diagnosis/treatment; hearsay barred | Statements made during medical exam and for diagnosis; exception applies | Admission affirmed under Rule 803(4) |
| Admission of TJ prior-act testimony (Rule 414/403) | Prior-act testimony prejudicial; district court failed to properly apply LeMay factors | Evidence highly probative of propensity; court considered LeMay factors | Admission affirmed; court did not abuse discretion |
| Exclusion of Carli Moncher (Fifth Amendment) | Exclusion improper; defense wanted her testimony | Moncher invoked blanket Fifth; court could conclude she could legitimately refuse most relevant questions | Exclusion affirmed; court properly sustained privilege invocation |
| Limitation of cousin’s mitigation testimony at sentencing | Limitation violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 and due process | Court considered § 3553(a) factors and permitted allocution; no entitlement to evidentiary hearing | Reviewed for plain error; no plain error or due process violation |
| Constitutionality of Indian Major Crimes Act (§1153) | §1153 unconstitutional as applied | §1153 valid federal jurisdiction | Challenge foreclosed by Ninth Circuit precedent; rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (standard for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (gatekeeping applies to expert methodology)
- Est. of Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc., 740 F.3d 457 (9th Cir. 2014) (standards for appellate review of expert-admission rulings)
- United States v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2001) (LeMay factors for Rule 403 analysis of Rule 414 evidence)
- United States v. Hadley, 918 F.2d 848 (9th Cir. 1990) (expert testimony on general characteristics of abused children admissible)
- United States v. JDT, 762 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2014) (medical-examination hearsay exception covers identification of abuser)
- United States v. Kootswatewa, 893 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2018) (factors supporting Rule 803(4) admissibility when exam occurs at medical facility)
- United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997) (sentencing courts have broad discretion to consider various information)
- United States v. Zepeda, 792 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2015) (upholding constitutionality and application of § 1153)