United States v. Lynn Michael LaVictor
848 F.3d 428
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Lynn LaVictor was tried for multiple federal offenses arising from an incident on June 27–28, 2014 in which his girlfriend, C.B., suffered vaginal and vaginal-mucosa lacerations and reported insertion of a foreign object (allegedly a wine bottle); medical testimony supported serious injury.
- C.B. initially gave a five-page hospital affidavit and grand jury testimony describing nonconsensual, violent sexual assault; later she recanted at a detention hearing and at trial, testifying the sexual activity was consensual and describing a history of rough sex.
- Police seized a rubber sex toy shaped like an arm and fist, a blood‑soaked rug, and wine bottles from LaVictor’s residence; LaVictor also provided an affidavit for C.B. to sign recanting her earlier statements, leading to superseding charges for attempted witness tampering and contempt.
- The government introduced expert testimony (Dr. Amy Bonomi) on domestic‑violence dynamics and victim recantation, prior‑bad‑act testimony from several former girlfriends under Rules 404(b) and 413, and admitted C.B.’s grand jury testimony as a prior inconsistent statement.
- The jury convicted LaVictor on six counts (including attempted sexual abuse, aggravated sexual abuse—vaginal and anal penetration, assault causing serious bodily injury, habitual domestic assault, and witness tampering). The district court denied Rule 29 and Rule 33 post‑trial motions and sentenced LaVictor to lengthy terms; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | LaVictor's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony on domestic violence/recantation (Rule 702/Daubert) | Testimony was by a qualified witness, relevant to explain victim recantation, and reliable (peer‑reviewed research); probative value outweighed prejudice | Testimony irrelevant, invaded jury role, methodologically unreliable and unduly prejudicial | Admission affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion on qualification, relevance, reliability, or Rule 403 balancing |
| Admissibility of prior bad acts under Rule 404(b) | Prior assaults on other partners are similar, probative of intent and absence of mistake, and not unduly prejudicial | Evidence impermissibly shows propensity, is cumulative, and prejudicial | Admission affirmed: evidence admissible for intent/absence of mistake and not overly prejudicial; harmless if error |
| Admission of prior sexual‑assault evidence under Rule 413 | Rule 413 allows prior sexual assault evidence for its bearing on any relevant matter (e.g., consent); testimony was sufficiently similar and supported | Prior acts too remote, uncorroborated, dissimilar and unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403 | Admission affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion in admitting Rule 413 evidence |
| Use and form of grand jury testimony (801(d)(1)) and related due process claim | Grand jury testimony was inconsistent with trial testimony and admissible as substantive evidence; calling the witness for impeachment was proper; transcript admission harmless | Grand jury testimony not truly inconsistent; prosecutor called C.B. solely to impeach (violating due process); admitting full transcript to jury was error without limiting instruction | Court upheld admission as prior inconsistent statement; due process claim rejected; transcript admission was error but not plain reversible error given context and lack of prejudice |
| Jury instructions on consent and Rule 413 evidence | Given instructions adequately explained consent as a factor and allowed consideration of Rule 413 evidence as relevant to any matter | Requested consent instruction was necessary; Rule 413 instruction misstated limits and prejudiced LaVictor | No reversible error: instructions adequate; any variance from defendant’s proposed wording did not create a grave miscarriage of justice |
| Sufficiency of the evidence (Rule 29; Counts: attempt, aggravated sexual abuse, §117, witness tampering) | Circumstantial and direct evidence (medical, statements, seized items, prior acts, witness tampering efforts) sufficed for each count | Recantation undermines proof of nonconsent; some counts insufficiently supported (e.g., anal penetration, §117 applicability, witness tampering requires more than a letter) | Convictions affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, each conviction supported (attempt, penetration, §117 applied to an intimate partner, and attempted witness tampering satisfied by affidavit solicitation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial judge’s gatekeeping role for expert testimony under Rule 702)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (trial court has broad latitude in assessing expert reliability)
- United States v. Semrau, 693 F.3d 510 (6th Cir. 2012) (Daubert and Rule 702 standards reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Smith, 142 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 1998) (expert testimony on victims’ reporting behavior admissible to rebut credibility arguments)
- United States v. Young, 316 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2002) (expert testimony explaining victim recantation admissible)
- United States v. Alzanki, 54 F.3d 994 (1st Cir. 1995) (prior‑victim behavior evidence admissible to show patterns consistent with abuse victims)
- United States v. Stout, 509 F.3d 796 (6th Cir. 2007) (discussing Congress’s rationale in codifying Rules 413–415 regarding propensity evidence in sexual assault cases)