40 F.4th 330
5th Cir.2022Background
- David Keith Wills was federally indicted for multiple sex‑trafficking and coercion counts involving Jane Doe, a child abused from ages 10–13, and for conspiring to obstruct justice by destroying a laptop; co‑defendant Maria Losoya later pled guilty and testified for the Government.
- Losoya testified she delivered Jane to Wills for sexual abuse in exchange for money/gifts; Jane testified similarly; documentary evidence corroborated their accounts.
- Wills was convicted on all but one count, sentenced to life imprisonment plus concurrent five years for obstruction conspiracy, fined $85,000, and ordered to pay $172,000 restitution; he appealed.
- On interlocutory appeal, this court previously rejected Wills’s double‑jeopardy challenge based on the dual‑sovereignty doctrine; Wills renewed several arguments on appeal from conviction.
- Major issues raised on appeal: (1) double jeopardy/dual‑sovereignty and law‑of‑the‑case; (2) alleged suppression/limitation of discovery about financial motives to lie (civil suit and counsel relationships); (3) exclusion of foreign medical records for failure to comply with reciprocal discovery; plus other claims the court found unavailing or waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy / dual‑sovereignty / law of the case | U.S.: prior panel decided dual‑sovereignty applied; federal prosecution permitted | Wills: state bond conditions amounted to punishment and Gamble undermines dual‑sovereignty | Court: law‑of‑the‑case bars relitigation; Gamble reaffirmed dual‑sovereignty and did not change controlling law |
| Discovery re: financial motive and Rule 17 subpoenas | U.S.: no responsive materials in Government control; Rule 17(c)(3) requires victim notice absent exceptional circumstances | Wills: exclusion/prevention of subpoenas and discovery impeded showing civil counsel’s contingent fee created motive to lie; newly discovered civil suit should grant new trial | Court: no Government suppression; Wills failed to pursue noticed subpoena briefing and abandoned some efforts; new‑trial claim waived for inadequate briefing; no denial of meaningful defense |
| Exclusion of South African medical records (Rule 16 reciprocal discovery) | U.S.: requested Wills’s medical records pretrial; reciprocal disclosure required when defendant seeks Government discovery | Wills: Rule 16(b) obligation arises only when he elects to use records in case‑in‑chief (i.e., after deciding to testify); exclusion violated Sixth Amendment | Court: Wills violated Rule 16(b) by not timely producing records; Taylor and Lundy permit preclusion sanctions; exclusion not shown to be an abuse of discretion; Wills waived arguments about discretion |
| Miscellaneous claims (jury bias, evidentiary rulings, warrants, prosecutorial conduct, etc.) | U.S.: challenged rulings supported by record and district court reasoning | Wills: raised multiple additional errors on appeal | Court: considered and rejected these claims for reasons stated by district court or found them waived; affirmed conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Gamble v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1960 (2019) (reaffirmed dual‑sovereignty doctrine)
- Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959) (explained limits/exceptions to successive prosecutions doctrine)
- Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1 (1820) (early antecedent for dual‑sovereignty principles)
- Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988) (preclusion sanction can be appropriate for discovery violations)
- United States v. Lundy, 676 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2012) (applied Taylor to uphold exclusion sanction under Rule 16)
- United States v. Davis, 639 F.2d 239 (5th Cir. 1981) (earlier Sixth Amendment analysis regarding exclusion of evidence)
- United States v. Wall, 389 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2004) (articulated Berry rule prerequisites for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) (right to present a complete defense is subject to evidentiary rules)