United States v. Joseph Lee
698 F. App'x 876
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Joseph Lee tried on three counts for violent sexual offenses; convicted on Counts II (assault with intent to commit aggravated sexual abuse) and III (assault with intent to commit abusive sexual contact), acquitted on Count I (aggravated sexual abuse).
- Victim testified; 911 call recording corroborated her account; treating nurse testified about rarity of visible injuries in sexual assault exams.
- DNA evidence: victim’s DNA was collected from Lee’s penis.
- Investigating agent testified about Lee’s inconsistent statements; Lee testified he “may have been” forceful.
- Lee appealed, arguing (1) the convictions were inconsistent with his acquittal and violated due process, and (2) insufficient evidence supported the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inconsistent jury verdicts violate due process | Lee: convictions on Counts II & III are inconsistent with acquittal on Count I and violate due process | Govt: inconsistent verdicts are permissible; robustness ensured by sufficiency review | Court: Inconsistent verdicts do not warrant relief; follows Dunn and Powell rule |
| Whether convictions are of mutually exclusive offenses such that inconsistency is fatal | Lee: cites Masoner—if verdicts are necessarily logically inconsistent, due process challenge stands | Govt: offenses here are not mutually exclusive; Masoner hypothetical not applicable | Court: Offenses not mutually exclusive; Masoner inapplicable |
| Whether evidence was sufficient under Winship/Jackson | Lee: record lacked evidence to prove elements beyond reasonable doubt | Govt: testimony, 911 recording, DNA, inconsistent statements, and Lee’s admission support convictions | Court: Viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, record sufficiently supports convictions |
| Whether particular evidentiary facts (lack of visible injury) defeat convictions | Lee: absence of visible injury undermines assault/sexual-abuse findings | Govt: medical testimony explained injuries often absent in sexual-assault exams | Court: Lack of visible injury does not preclude conviction given other corroborating evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (inconsistent jury verdicts do not require reversal)
- United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (same; sufficiency review cures concern over inconsistency)
- Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 352 (reaffirming Powell rule)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency-of-the-evidence review)
- Masoner v. Thurman, 996 F.2d 1003 (9th Cir.) (discusses logically mutually exclusive-offense exception)
- Steckler v. United States, 7 F.2d 59 (2d Cir.) (early discussion supporting inconsistent-verdict principle)