United States v. Jay Littlewind, Sr.
680 F. App'x 496
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jay Littlewind, Sr. was indicted for aggravated sexual abuse of a child (18 U.S.C. § 2241(c)) based on a 2008 incident in which the victim L.D., then seven, alleged digital vaginal penetration.
- The allegation was disclosed to family members in 2012 and to others in 2014; an SFN 960 form was completed and provided to FBI Special Agent Brian Cima, who arranged a forensic interview.
- Forensic interviewer Jill Perez conducted L.D.’s interview at a children’s advocacy center while Agent Cima observed; her testimony described the interview protocol and her neutral role but did not state that L.D. identified Littlewind.
- At trial the district court limited Perez’s testimony (precluding identification of the abuser, opinions on truthfulness, and testimony about delays in reporting) but allowed background testimony about the protocol and that Perez followed it.
- Littlewind was convicted after a second trial and appealed, arguing Perez’s testimony should have been excluded as irrelevant or, alternatively, excluded under Rule 403 as more prejudicial than probative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under Rule 401 (relevance) | Perez’s testimony was irrelevant and should be excluded | Government: testimony provided background explaining the investigative steps that led to the full FBI inquiry | Court: testimony was relevant background (aids jury understanding of investigation) |
| Admissibility under Rule 403 (prejudice vs. probative value) | Perez’s protocol and credentials unduly bolstered victim credibility and risked unfair prejudice | Government: probative value outweighed any prejudice; limited testimony reduced risk | Court: even if admission was error, any error was harmless given other evidence and limited use of testimony |
| Harmless error assessment | Admission was prejudicial and not harmless because victim credibility was central | Government: multiple sources showed the victim identified defendant; interview mainly provided background | Court: any error could not have had more than a slight effect on outcome; harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Proper scope of background testimony | Perez’s detailed protocol testimony exceeded necessary background and impermissibly vouched | Government: testimony explained why Agent Cima opened a full investigation | Court: permitted limited background testimony and affirmed conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Naiden, 424 F.3d 718 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings and reversal only when substantial rights affected)
- United States v. Byers, 603 F.3d 503 (8th Cir. 2010) (juries entitled to background and circumstances of charges)
- United States v. LaDue, 561 F.3d 855 (8th Cir. 2009) (background evidence admissible to aid jury understanding)
- United States v. Johnson, 934 F.2d 936 (8th Cir. 1991) (background may explain investigatory process leading to charges)
- United States v. Boros, 668 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2012) (background evidence with marginal relevance is vulnerable to Rule 403 exclusion)
- United States v. Azure, 845 F.2d 1503 (8th Cir. 1988) (other instances of identification can mitigate prejudicial impact of contested evidence)
- United States v. Robinson, 639 F.3d 489 (8th Cir. 2011) (harmless-error standard where evidentiary error had only slight influence on verdict)