United States v. Willard John
683 F. App'x 589
9th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Willard John was convicted by a jury of federal second-degree murder and sentenced to life; he appealed.
- John gave written/gestural statements during two hospital interviews while unable to speak; the district court admitted those statements at trial.
- On the eve of trial the government disclosed a DNA report and had disposed of a mattress and some photographs; the district court excluded the late report but denied a continuance and refused adverse-inference relief.
- The government introduced prior-act testimony from multiple witnesses about a long history of domestic abuse and admitted the victim’s out-of-court statement to her physical therapist identifying John.
- John challenged voluntariness of his hospital statements, loss/nonpreservation of evidence, admission of prior-bad-acts and victim’s statements, prosecutorial misconduct, jury instructions (heat of passion), and the substantive reasonableness of his life sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (John) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness of hospital statements | Statements involuntary: John was medicated, in pain, unable to speak, and only nodded/wrote; akin to Mincey | John was alert/oriented; nurse and agent said meds did not impair him; he communicated coherently | Court: No clear error; statements voluntary and admissible |
| Late disclosure & lost evidence (mattress, photos) | Prejudice from late DNA report and destroyed evidence; bad-faith preservation failure | Government preserved key samples/cut-outs; thumbnails of photos preserved; no bad faith | Court: Denied continuance but excluded report; no due-process violation; no adverse-inference instruction |
| Admission of victim’s statement to physical therapist | Statement of fault; not covered by medical-treatment hearsay exception | Statement was reasonably pertinent to diagnosis/treatment (safety, psychological impact) | Court: Admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 803(4) in context of domestic abuse |
| Prior-act evidence of domestic violence | Prejudicial character evidence used to prove propensity | Admissible under Rule 404(b) to show motive, intent, identity; limiting instructions given | Court: Admission not an abuse; if error, harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gamez, 301 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2002) (standard for reviewing voluntariness; de novo review of legal question, factual findings for clear error)
- Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000) (voluntariness inquiry: whether defendant’s will was overborne)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978) (hospital interviews of injured defendant held involuntary where confused and unable to invoke rights)
- United States v. Sivilla, 714 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2013) (due-process test for destroyed evidence focuses on government bad faith)
- United States v. Hall, 419 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2005) (victim’s identification to medical provider admissible under Rule 803(4) in domestic-violence context)
- United States v. Chea, 231 F.3d 531 (9th Cir. 2000) (Rule 404(b) is inclusive; other-acts admissible when relevant to non-propensity issues)
- United States v. Hodges, 770 F.2d 1475 (9th Cir. 1985) (standard for harmlessness of evidentiary error)