United States v. Martin Jonassen
759 F.3d 653
7th Cir.2014Background
- Defendant Martin Jonassen abducted his 21-year-old daughter (E.J.) from Missouri, took her to an Indiana motel, restrained and sexually assaulted her; she escaped but was recaptured; Jonassen was arrested and federally indicted for kidnapping and obstruction of justice.
- Physical evidence (rope, motel disarray, semen on sheets with mixed DNA) and E.J.’s contemporaneous statements to police and hospital exam supported the prosecution.
- Over seven months after arrest, Jonassen repeatedly contacted and pressured E.J. in violation of a no-contact order—using guilt, offers of money/property, and intermediaries—to induce recantation.
- At trial E.J., who had previously cooperated and met prosecutors the night before, invoked blanket amnesia on the stand and refused to answer substantive questions; the district court found her "unavailable" under Fed. R. Evid. 804(a)(3).
- The district court admitted E.J.’s prior statements under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(6), convicted Jonassen on both counts, and sentenced him; on appeal Jonassen challenged (1) denial of a competency hearing, (2) Rule 804(b)(6) admission, and (3) denial of posttrial Jencks Act relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Jonassen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion by declining to hold a competency hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 4241 | Competency hearing not required; record shows no bona fide doubt of mental disease or defect preventing understanding or assistance | Trial counsel and Jonassen argued bizarre sovereign-citizen positions and counsel reported scrambled/rationally impaired thinking meriting a hearing | Affirmed — no reasonable cause shown; bizarre legal theories and obstructionist behavior do not establish incompetence; district court adequately explained denial |
| Whether prior statements of E.J. were admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(6) (procuring unavailability) | Admission proper: evidence established Jonassen’s wrongful acts (calls, letters, offers, intimidation) intended to and in fact procured E.J.’s unavailability | Argued evidence was circumstantial and insufficient; E.J. did not admit fear or tie her memory loss to his conduct | Affirmed — clear error review; circumstantial evidence sufficed to show wrongful procurement and specific intent; hearsay admissible |
| Whether Jonassen was entitled to Jencks Act material or other relief based on prosecutor notes of pretrial meeting with E.J. | Notes are work product, not Jencks statements; government offered in camera review; disclosure not required posttrial | Claimed government withheld Jencks material and sought new trial/acquittal based on nondisclosure | Affirmed — Jencks requests must be timely (during trial after witness testifies); no postverdict remedy; notes would not have aided impeachment given E.J.’s entirely inculpatory prior statements |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. James, 328 F.3d 953 (7th Cir. 2003) (bizarre legal theories do not alone demonstrate incompetence)
- United States v. Alden, 527 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. 2008) (district court best positioned to assess competency; no sua sponte hearing required absent bona fide doubt)
- United States v. Scott, 284 F.3d 758 (7th Cir. 2002) (elements for admitting hearsay under Rule 804(b)(6))
- United States v. Allen, 798 F.2d 985 (7th Cir. 1986) (presumption favoring in camera inspection when defendant makes reasonable Jencks argument)
- United States v. Clay, 495 F.2d 700 (7th Cir. 1974) (Jencks Act motions must be timely; post-trial requests are untimely)
- United States v. Knapp, 25 F.3d 451 (7th Cir. 1994) (Jencks motion must be made at minimum before close of evidence)
- United States v. Fragoso, 978 F.2d 896 (5th Cir. 1992) (district court duty to inspect documents in camera if timely request and indicia they meet Jencks definition)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 554 U.S. 164 (2008) (discussed regarding competency to proceed pro se; court may limit self-representation in narrow circumstances)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (standard for competency to stand trial)