United States v. Rogers
6:21-cr-00232
E.D. Okla.Apr 7, 2022Background
- Defendant Jerry Dewayne Rogers is charged in a Superseding Indictment with seven federal sexual-offense counts alleging sexual abuse or contact of a minor victim, K.A., occurring 2011–2016.
- Counts include aggravated sexual abuse and abusive sexual contact (digital penetration and touching) when K.A. was under 12 and when she was between 12–16. Jurisdictional allegations invoke Indian Country status.
- K.A. received counseling; the government seeks admission of counselor progress notes (Dec. 4, 2019–Jun. 22, 2021) that include K.A.’s statements identifying Rogers as the perpetrator under the hearsay exception, Fed. R. Evid. 803(4).
- The government also intends to introduce portions of a recorded investigative interview of Rogers; the government says Rogers’s statements are admissible against him and seeks to limit Rogers from introducing other parts without identifying them under the rule of completeness.
- Rogers objects on two principal grounds: (1) alleged incomplete disclosure of earlier counseling records and (2) that identity statements identifying Rogers are not ordinarily admissible under Rule 803(4) absent the requisite family/household relationship; Rogers contends that relationship here is not established for pretrial ruling.
- The Court denied pretrial resolution: it ordered the government to produce any additional reasonably available notes, declined to rule on admissibility of identity statements in advance (directing a trial proffer/foundation), and required the parties to meet and confer and submit designations for the interview video before trial if no agreement is reached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of K.A.’s counseling statements under Fed. R. Evid. 803(4) | Statements were made for diagnosis/treatment and thus admissible; notes fall under Rule 803(4) hearsay exception | Identity statements naming Rogers are not ordinarily within 803(4); exception limited to household/family abusers and Rogers asserts that relationship/foundation is not established pretrial | Court refused pretrial ruling; admissibility reserved for trial after government lays factual foundation (outside jury presence) |
| Sufficiency of government disclosure of counseling records | Produced progress notes and cover letter; any additional notes will be provided if reasonably available | Objected that earlier notes (treatment period beginning Oct. 22, 2019) were not provided and sought production | Court directed government to comply with Rule 16 and produce additional reasonably available notes or face a 17(c) subpoena; preserved defendant’s ability to seek missing records |
| Admissibility and scope of defendant’s recorded interview; rule of completeness (Fed. R. Evid. 106) | Rogers’s statements are admissible against him; government offered timestamps of portions it intends to play and asked Rogers to identify any additional portions that should be considered together | Rogers said he cannot decide what to offer until seeing what government will play and warned partial playing may mislead; reserved right to introduce context if government plays portions | Court declined pretrial decision; ordered meet-and-confer on specific video parts and required each party to submit pretrial designations highlighting disagreements if no agreement reached |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Joe, 8 F.3d 1488 (10th Cir.) (recognizes exception to Rule 803(4) exclusion of identity statements in child-abuse cases when abuser is family/household member)