United States v. Piette, 45 F.4th 1142

Background

Piette was tried and convicted of kidnapping Rosalynn McGinnis (18 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(1), 1201(g)) and traveling with intent to engage in sexual relations with a juvenile (18 U.S.C. § 2423(b)); district court sentenced him to life and 360 months respectively.
Trial featured extensive testimony about long-term sexual and physical abuse of McGinnis and sexual abuse of Piette’s daughters and an unrelated Springfield girl; the district court admitted that other-acts evidence as res gestae and under Rules 404(b)/414, issuing only a conclusory Rule 403 balancing.
Piette argued the traveling-with-intent count was time-barred absent retroactive application of statutes that extended the limitations period; the district court held the extensions validly applied to an unexpired charging period.
For the kidnapping count, the court instructed jurors that Piette bore the burden (preponderance) to prove McGinnis was no longer held against her will before July 28, 2016 (which would trigger the statute of limitations); the jury convicted and found he had not met that burden.
Piette requested counsel withdrawal and asserted ineffective assistance in letters before sentencing; the court granted withdrawal to be effective after sentencing and appointed counsel for appeal; Piette claims he was denied the right to represent himself at sentencing.
On appeal the Tenth Circuit: affirmed admission of molestation evidence (res gestae); affirmed travel-with-intent conviction (statute extensions not impermissibly retroactive); reversed the kidnapping conviction because the jury instruction misallocated the burden on the timing/statute-of-limitations issue; rejected Piette’s Faretta claim.

Issues

Issue	Piette's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Admission of other-acts molestation evidence	Evidence was highly prejudicial and unnecessary; it improperly invited propensity inference	Evidence was intrinsic (res gestae) to show household scheme, consent, and context; alternatively admissible under 404(b)/414	Upheld admission as res gestae for daughters; any error re: Springfield girl harmless; Rule 403 conclusion, though terse, was not an abuse of discretion
Statute of limitations retroactivity for traveling-with-intent	Extensions enacted after offense cannot be applied retroactively to extend limitations for pre-enactment conduct	Extensions applied to an unexpired charging period and therefore did not impermissibly revive expired claims	Affirmed: applying extensions to a still-live limitations period is not impermissibly retroactive under Landgraf framework
Burden allocation on kidnapping timing/statute-of-limitations	Court erred by requiring Piette to prove by preponderance that McGinnis was free earlier; once he raised timing, government must prove continuity beyond a reasonable doubt	Court treated timing as defendant’s burden; relied on precedent allowing defendant to bear burden of certain defenses	Reversed kidnapping conviction: plain error—burden should have shifted to government to disprove defendant’s statute-of-limitations defense beyond a reasonable doubt
Right to self-representation at sentencing (Faretta)	Piette contends he clearly sought to proceed pro se and was denied a Faretta hearing	Court and government say requests were ambiguous (withdraw counsel for appeal/new counsel) and Piette verbally assented to counsel remaining through sentencing	Affirmed denial: no clear and unequivocal request to proceed pro se; court did not abuse discretion

Key Cases Cited

Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (framework for assessing retroactivity of statutes)
Musacchio v. United States, 577 U.S. 237 (when defendant raises statute-of-limitations defense, government must prove timing)
Smith v. United States, 568 U.S. 106 (government must prove timing if statute-of-limitations defense raised)
United States v. Duran, 133 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir.) (instructional error on burden for affirmative defenses can require reversal)
United States v. Ford, 613 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir.) (res gestae/intrinsic evidence doctrine)
Lazcano-Villalobos, 175 F.3d 838 (10th Cir.) (upholding implicit Rule 403 determinations when record supports them)
Weingarten v. United States, 865 F.3d 48 (2d Cir.) (discussing retroactivity and limitations extensions)
United States v. Miller, 911 F.3d 638 (1st Cir.) (analyzing limitations extensions and retroactivity)