United States v. Thomas William Frederick
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13663
8th Cir.2012Background
- Frederick was convicted after a five-day trial of counts 1, 2, and 4 arising from alleged sexual abuse of W.F. and J.F. on an Indian Reservation, with Count 3 not sustaining a conviction.
- The district court sentenced Frederick to 145 months total, with Counts I, II, and IV to be served consecutively as appropriate.
- Frederick challenged two trial rulings: (i) cross-examination of the alleged victims about prior false abuse accusations, and (ii) admission of E.S. testimony designated as a Rule 418 witness who later recanted.
- The district court barred questioning about prior accusations under Rule 412 and related Rules 403 and 608(b), finding minimal probative value and risk of confusion.
- The government later indicated E.S. would not testify; Frederick sought to probe potential taint from FBI handling, which the court denied.
- The court and parties moved to supplement the appellate record, which the court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause impact of cross-exam about prior accusations | Frederick argues cross-exam should reveal motive to lie. | Court wrongly limited relevance of prior false accusations to show motive. | No Sixth Amendment violation; evidence minimal probative value. |
| Admission of E.S. testimony under Rule 418 | E.S. testimony could illuminate taint by FBI handling. | E.S. never testified; taint claim not supported. | Correct to release E.S. from subpoena; no error. |
| Rule 412 and Rule 403/608(b) reliance for excluding prior accusations | Cross-exam should be allowed to show W.F. and J.F. lied; prior acts probative. | Exclusion appropriate due to Rule 412 and risk of mini-trials. | District court properly excluded; probative value outweighed by prejudice. |
| Motions to supplement the appellate record | Supplemental materials would demonstrate falsity of prior accusations. | Record supplementation unnecessary; would not change outcome. | Motions denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tail, 459 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2006) (limits on prior false-accusation evidence; Confrontation Clause analysis)
- Bartlett, 856 F.2d 1071 (8th Cir. 1988) (false accusations; credibility and probative value)
- Crimm v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 750 F.2d 703 (8th Cir. 1984) (Rule 403 balancing evidence impact)
- United States v. Bear Stops, 997 F.2d 451 (8th Cir. 1993) (limitations on prejudice vs. probative value)
- United States v. Purkey, 428 F.3d 738 (8th Cir. 2005) (authority on admissibility grounds under Rule 403/608(b))
- United States v. White Horse, 316 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 2003) (trial court discretion to exclude collateral evidence)
- United States v. Ragland, 555 F.3d 706 (8th Cir. 2009) (confrontation clause review standard)
- United States v. Jewell, 614 F.3d 911 (8th Cir. 2010) (confrontation clause review de novo when clause implicated)