United States v. Pablo
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23526
| 10th Cir. | 2010Background
- Pablo was convicted by a jury of vaginal rape, kidnapping, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, and carjacking; co-defendant Gordo was convicted on similar counts.
- DNA and serology analysis were performed by crime lab analysts; only Snider testified as an expert linking Pablo to DNA on the victim and a condom.
- Dick's DNA report and Boyd's serology report were not called as witnesses; Snider relied on those reports to form her opinions.
- Pablo argued Snider’s testimony violated the Confrontation Clause because it conveyed out-of-court statements from uncalled analysts.
- Prosecution raised concerns about self-incrimination for two defense witnesses; the district court appointed independent counsel and allowed witnesses to consult counsel.
- The district court excluded certain Rule 412 evidence; the court and the prosecutor claimed to balance victim privacy with defense rights; on appeal the court affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause – admissibility of Snider’s testimony based on others’ reports | Pablo argues Snider parroted uncalled analysts’ testimonial statements | Government relies on Rule 703; Melendez-Diaz not clearly controlling | Not plain error; admission not reversible |
| Whether government interference with defense witnesses violated due process | Prosecutor pressured witnesses not to testify via self-incrimination risk | District court ensured respect for Fifth Amendment and independent counsel | No reversible error; no substantial interference |
| Rule 412 evidentiary ruling excluding prior sexual behavior/advances | Evidence falls under Rule 412(b)(1)(A)/(C) to challenge consent | Evidence lacked proper nexus; improper for consent defense | No reversible error; exclusions proper or non-prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause scope and testimonial statements)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (Forensic affidavits as testimonial; cross-examination rights)
- Pursley, United States v. Pursley, 577 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2009) (Testimonial statements; degree of admissibility via expert)
- United States v. Davis, United States v. Davis, 40 F.3d 1069 (4th Cir. 1994) (Expert reliance on others’ notes permissible under Rule 703)
- United States v. Serrano, United States v. Serrano, 406 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2005) (Prosecution not to coerce; independent counsel for witnesses)