United States v. Martha L. Woods

WINTER, Before FIELD and WID- ENER, Judges. Circuit WINTER, Judge: Circuit guilty by Martha L. found Woods was degree1 in the murder charges seven of assault with murder, attempt murder, intent eight-month- of her mistreatment2 pre-adoptive son, old foster Paul David appli murder, 1. 18 § U.S.C. 1111. The section was with intent § Assault 18 U.S.C. operative 113(a) (three occasions) attempt ; cable because the mur- events occurred Proving Grounds, occasions) (three ; Maryland, der, at Aberdeen § U.S.C. minor, 7, 13, federal reservation. §§ mistreatment 18 U.S.C. Md., Art. 35A. Ann.Code of receiving “straight” sen- had also been indicted —instead Woods. She assault, tence life. to trial on three counts of find no merit went contentions, attempt murder, of these affirm. and mistreatment we two-year-old adopted Judy Woods, her I. granted daughter, the district court but judgment acquittal on these arise from the issues before us charges. government, to sentenced ne- Mrs. Woods was manner which imprisonment prove of to case. cessity, on the undertook life conviction government degree murder, that Paul was and she received The showed first February 9, 1969, he on the other convic and that various sentences born concurrently tions, spent life in one first five months of his some to run with During another, that time his a foster home. and others to run consecutivel y.3 physical he health was uneventful and breathing prob- never from suffered appeal, contends In this Mrs. Woods cyanosis (a color, principal- lems or blue government prove first that the failed to oxy- ly lips, due to a lack of around beyond corpus de- doubt the reasonable gen). placed At the time he was murder, of because the evi- licti both home, normal, Mrs. he was a Woods’ of Paul the death dence healthy baby. supply and failed to Woods August Beginning nine other a bizarre her because evidence about Twice on that for of occurred. children not admissible series events was August again second, Au- purpose;4 date, if such evi- once on that even and August 20, gust 13, prior Paul suffered to and of was admissible dence acts gasping prove corpus for breath and delicti, the evidence in instances oxygen. turning lack Each too blue from was case was inadmissible because responded prove to mouth-to-mouth to that defendant time he insubstantial August third, resuscitation, except incidents; on when and caused the persisted admissible, un- he went into a coma which that even if it was otherwise age September he died at an improperly til when instructed was slightly On regard than seven months. more the district court to the con- with might give the evidence in- each of these occasions sideration it to such in Mrs. had been dicated Paul dence. A final contention is on only degree custody, Mrs. Woods and conviction murder Mrs. Woods’ of first occa- had to him. On each under had access Woods could have been sentenced August 20, taken 4208(a) Paul sion to was sentence the dis- U.S.C. § —a occasion, hospital. first disposed On the trict court indicated that it was immediately powerless adopt he was released because to consider but was imprisonment, imprisonment im- all were life sentences Defendant was sentenced to period twenty 4208(a)(2), (a) posed years so as for a on under U.S.O. each eligible permit become three the defendant convictions assault with intent parole murder, (b) years of Pa- time as the Board for such three on eacli three attempt murder, (c) role determine. counts and fif- years teen for mistreatment minor. points out, attempt if defend- brief 4. As defendant’s The sentences for to murder were concurrently in this with re- contention each run ant is successful made to with sen- murder, charge spect be she would for to the tence assault with intent murder remaining date, counts entitled to reversal committed on the same each pairs the additional same reason and for these three were for of sentences made to prejudice consecutively trial those her run reason of with each other argues only Accordingly, defendant counts. the sentence for mistreatment Thus, of a minor. charge commitment, of murder. context of the total addition to opinion agree imprisonment ad- and in this we will the sentence of life for charge degree murder, of mur- seventy-five years, was dress ourselves appli- say equally der, we total but what will these commitments made run were remaining concurrently counts. cable to the with the im- sentence life prisonment. Except sentence niece; nephew; ap- one disclosed that he was two examination occasions, parently the other children of friends. well. On days’ observation, no after several even listing of There follow a the nine oth- cyanosis respiratory reason for his summary er children and a of the evi- difficulties could be discovered. dence, government, favorable to the con- cerning them: To death nei- Paul’s ther nor the result of natural accidental Judy Woods causes,5 presented the testimony pathologist, of a forensic Dr. adopted by Judy defendant and DiMaio, who, medical based Paul’s age husband, under the and while history, the records of various hos- his two, episodes had at least six of blueness pitalizations, and the of an au- results breathing epi- Two difficulties. pathologist topsy per- had sodes occurred December formed after Paul’s death stated that Judy days. hospitalized was for six Paul’s death was not suicide or accident 22, 1968, Another occurred March and that he found no evidence of natural February another on 1969. On expressed opin- death. Dr. DiMaio his 16, 1969, Judy March turned blue but seventy-five percent ion as one of cer- responded to mouth-to-mouth resuscita- tainty that Paul’s death was homicide September 9, tion. On there was smothering. caused Dr. DiMaio ex- Judy episode another was admitted plained twenty-five percent degree his Army Hospital to Kirk and later The being possibility doubt as that Paul During Hopkins Hospital. Johns naturally currently from died a disease hospitalization, any nor as a result of science, unknown medical and he test, other medical examination or was agreed that his doubt was a “reasonable any cyanosis breathing cause for doubt” within the standard definition difficulties discovered. On each occa- given by the court.6 Judy experienced cyanosis sion that she Judy was alone with Next, defendant. When showed that be- custody was removed from ginning in 1945 Mrs. had Woods had discharge after her custody of, last from to, the hos- or access nine children pital, again she never suffered from twenty epi- who suffered a minimum of type cyanotic cyanosis. condition. died, sodes Seven children multiple episodes cy- while five had Charles Lewis Stewart anosis. Three of the children children; own Charles was natural born two were defendant’s first natural adopted; although children prematurely she had child and one born was a being initially hospitalized sprayings, 5. After Kirk made ill at from insecticide Army Hospital, Paul was transferred amounts used at base were within the Hopkins Hospital. prescribed safety limits, The Johns The staff at that Paul had not Hopkins vigorously pursued possibility experienced July 3, 1969, difficulties from poison- August 4, 1969, sprayings that Paul awas victim of insecticide until when had ing. suggesting possibility on, going A factor this been and that there was a lack of complaint parents timing spray- was the of his there correlation between the of the frequent ings had been and extensive insecticide and the times Paul when became ill. sprayings army they on the base where toxicology report prior presence jury, lived and a to death 6. Out of the Di- Dr. suggested possibility poi- gave of insecticide Maio testified that if he consideration soning. trial, government presented At to the evidence the nine other children, quantity text, evidence to show that of insec- discussed infra in the his toxicology report opinion ticide shown in the did not would be that Paul was a victim of normally beyond exceed that found as a result of homicide a reasonable doubt. eating sprayed court, however, permit foods that are insecti- district refused testimony presented jury. cides. There was also that no oth- to the army er child on the base had ever been diagnosis medically impossible congenital un- mal- was without born old, month der these one circumstances. he When formation. cyanosis episodes of experienced two he John Wise being arms. held in defendant’s while ap- hospital, Charles nephew taken When who John was defendant’s (cid:127) apparent distress and peared age in no to be 26, 1946, died December at Two normal. hospital years course was his three and seven months and who hos- suffering from the days he diphtheria after was released from at cough- episode pital, died after government’s he ev- of his death. The time choking, turning Al- ing, blue. he was idence was that John died while presented though alibi defendant three and that bed with defendant present dence to she was show from home also other children who government’s died, he diphtheria when suffered from all survived. contrary. of death The cause was to the Lilly Marie (“enlarged Stewart death certificate listed thymus” lymphaticus”) was and “status Lilly niece died was defendant’s who impossibil- to have been a medical shown 18, 1958, age May fourteen ity. parents The child’s awoke one months. night to find child in defendant’s Mary Elizabeth Huston making gurgling ap- noise and arms Mary pearing second born to be blue the mouth. was defendant’s around hospital, in 1950. and she born rushed to was natural child was When the she age autopsy per- month and at the of one dead on arrival. No was died She days. prematurely, twenty-seven Born formed. spent of her the three weeks she Eddie Thomas hospital upon and her release in life a care, or four eighteen-month-old she suffered child, defendant’s Eddie, an cyanosis episodes when at times brother, five eight-year-old or and his seven Mary or her mother was alone with David, left with defendant while were twice, hospitalized was her care. She in the visited her husband the mother cyanosis cyanosis her experienced no medical reason for hospital. and Eddie death occurred discovered. Her hospital. could be There he taken to the and was The arms. she was defendant’s appeared while and released. His well was cer- her death of death listed on causes a on his neck mother bruise observed (“asphyxiation a mucous day. due to tificate bathed him later the when she ovale”) “patent plug” foramen and had conceded that she been Defendant medically impossible to have been experienced shown Eddie he alone with when extremely unlikely. explanation breathing Her difficulties. difficulty, i.e., mu- the cause block, to have been cous was shown Carol Ann Huston impossibility. medical third natu- was defendant’s Carol January child. was born ral She Marian Rash age three died at and friend, twenty-one days. of a who She was Marian was child months and age eight- May 3, healthy baby, normal, but died on shown day During cyanosis last five experienced months. een she cy- life, three in the care of his he suffered her when she months death govern- care. custody while in defendant’s The anotic attacks mother. hospital- he was the first attack cause After ment’s showed days and no seizures certificate ized five suffered on her death death listed diagno- “bronchopneu- hospital. initial (“epiglossitis” in the An while diagnosed epilepsy was The second monia”) after sis of made. must have been autopsy episode months later occurred four death without again hospitalized. prior acts, The third ant’s combined with the evi- .he episode day he was re- dence Woods, occurred of Paul death hospital permit leased from the from the second was sufficient to episode, autopsy beyond and the child died. An to find a reasonable doubt that culpable failed to The reveal a cause of death. Paul’s death was a homicide preliminary diagnosis perpetrated by epilepsy defendant. largely disproved. recognized A. General. As in VII government rebuttal, In its Wigmore, proof (1940), Evidence 2072 testimony

presented path- of another requires proof of homicide of three ele- ologist opinion, that, in who testified his proof death, proof ments: that death Paul was the victim of homicide through criminality, occurred someone’s smothering. identity of the accused’s According perpetrator crime.

The offered no real evi- Wigmore, ‘corpus any any “the term delicti’ dence of motive for of the acts charged. investiga- pre-trial in its orthodox Extensive . sense . sanity signifies] merely tion of dis- the first of ele- failed to these why p. close “But reason she should not be . . . .” Id. ments by sanity judges question in- tried. most the term is made to While of her also, e., alleged at the time of clude the second body’s i. some- offenses was element origi- guilty criminality.” (emphasis jury, jury’s submitted to the nal). p. verdicts indicated Id. The view found her sane. “orthodox” minority

is a and one that view has II. acceptance found wide in the United jurisdictions require States. Most gov- Defendant’s contention that (a) (b) death and death foul corpus ernment failed to delic- corpus means to establish the delicti of beyond ti a reasonable doubt rests homicide. propositions (a) proof the three culpable homicide parties agree order sus- requires proof alleged of death of the govern- tain defendant’s convictions the proof victim and that that death oc- proved beyond ment must have a reason- by suicide, curred means other than ac- able doubt that Paul’s death was caused causes, short, cident or natural that by culpable homicide and that defendant by (b) death occurred act, a criminal ev- perpetrator They was the of the crime. idence of other crimes is not admissible agree corpus also that delicti need alleged to show that the death of the proven beyond not be a reasonable doubt (c) homicide, victim occurred but government’s until the end of the ease. admissible, proof even if of other unnecessary We find it therefore presented government crimes in' choose between the “orthodox” and the instant case was not so clear and majority view what constitutes the convincing permit toas to find corpus delicti, because, for the reasons that Paul’s death was homicide. shortly which we will express, we think government by asserting The counters concerning that the evidence of incidents the other children was admissible (a) culpable homicide, for the cor- gener- pus by proof delicti is ally established of the specifically was admissible alone, e., body; fact of death prove i. a dead corpus delicti, so that at the end guilty proof require verdict would still government’s case, fully it had that the death was caused the crimi- met the burden which defendant con- agency defendant, (b) any nal of this placed tends Thus, pro- was on it. we event, evidence of these directly acts was ceed proof to discuss whether admissible to establish both the concerning events the other criminality, delicti and the accused’s legally prove children admissible to (c) government (a) evidence defend- Paul’s death result

133 concerning culpable to relate the facts the at- homicide and not natural young, per- tempt life, (b) on his and too if he causes, was the defendant enough survive, petrator does not to have exerted of the crime. resistance that the marks of his cause state, outset, if at the will him. Absent the for- death survive admissible, legally no have presence eyewitness, we otherwise infan- tuitous an proof the relevance of about doubt ticide or child abuse suffocation probative largely go unpunished. both effect to establish and its Min- would See hap propositions. 271, Loss, The evidence of what nesota v. Minn. 204 N.W. 295 not, pened to the other children was 2d 404 strictly speaking, of other Admissibility de B. Evidence There was no evidence crimes. Generally. government respect and the de with

fendant was accused agree respiratory fendant that evidence of other the deaths or difficulties children, except Judy. crimes admissible that an Si the other person multaneously accused is a bad likely and therefore with her trial crimes alleged against Paul, to have committed the crime in defendant Indeed, alleged question. beyond being against rule dis tried for crimes pute: States, Judy, Michelson v. United 335 no direct but there was 469, 475-476, guilt 69 L.Ed. court U.S. S.Ct. 93 and the district (1948); Baldivid, 168 United States ruled that the circumstantial cert, 1972), (4 de 465 F.2d Cir. 1277 was insufficient for the nied, Thus, regard 409 34 L.Ed.2d 499 proved U.S. have its case. (1972); Mastrototaro, legally single any United States child was there cert, denied, (4 455 F.2d 802 Cir. defendant had done sufficient Only L.Ed.2d 32 any forbids. which the law act (1972); Smith, United States when all of the (4 1971); F.2d Cir. United is consid nine other children and Paul (4 Samuel, States v. 431 F.2d collectively im ered is the conclusion 1970); States, Cir. Benton v. probability pelled that some or that the 1956); Lovely (4 seizures, F.2d deaths, cyanotic 491 Cir. v. Unit of the other all (4 ed 169 F.2d respiratory were acci deficiencies argues Defendant that while there are to natural causes dental attributable recognized exceptions certain to this remote, the truth must be that was so rule, the instant case cannot fitted or all of the other chil Paul some them, emphasizing into that cor dren died of the defendant. hands pus exception. not an Mc is the crime is think also that when (Cleary Ed. abuse, Cormick 1972). Evidence 190 evi one of infanticide or child meeting government, in repeated especially this dence of incidents is approach, may only contends that evidence was evi relevant because it be the theory on the it admissible that tended dence to age the crime. A child of the prove (a) the existence of a continu of Paul of the others about ing plan,7 signa (b) or help the handiwork evidence was received is a whom alleged exception,8 (c) ture less, that the acts life. unit of human defenseless inadvertent, survives, in the indictment not were young, if a child is too he Such 7. Makin Wales, foster 630 Wales) prosecution ed to twelve other support, (1874) support him with parent. ^[1894] v. was held Attorney Regina infants, inadequate payment Evidence infanticide A.C. 57 admissible. this v. General who view. Roden, that had (P.C.1893) of New the bodies Malcin was been In 12 Cox Or. professional Roden, for their entrust South (N.S. a 8. All 2d 924 guilt prosecution methods of children died Rex. v. E.R.Rep. People of the accused. (1946) permitted that George Joseph Smith, v. previous for in 262 Peete, three infanticide (“Brides lap, 28 Cal.2d homicides defendant’s of Bath” held admissible. to establish suffocation, [1914-15] 169 unique case) P. 134 exception heretofore unintentional, (d) the an rec- accidental, nature into or ognized minds, mechanistic identity perpetrator is, to our too as the

defendant’s agree approach. an are inclined of the crime. We that with the defendant listing McCormick, in or under the scheme not admissible of other in which evidence stances exception continuing plan there because may admissible, “that be cautions crimes engaged that defendant was no evidence range complete, not for the the list is so, plan, if or, or scheme relevancy almost infi outside the ban is objective motive. The evidence or then, Mc- . . .” And nite . Id. 448. lack of under have been admissible Cormick states: ordinarily although exception, accident (espe- opinions of the wiser [S]ome only exception an is where invoked recognize cially ones) recent that the acts he did accused admits pigeon- problem merely is one necessary charged the intent but denies holing, balancing, but one on the crime, or contends constitute side, the the other actual need for one accidentally. Mc- he the acts did light of the crimes evidence in the is- However, p. Cormick, State and the available sues other evidence (1876), Lapage, there N.H. 294 57 convincingness prosecution, circum- dictum that under certain of the evidence that the other crimes stances where several children committed the accused were and that died, same mother had actor, strength was the or ought previous admissible deaths to be of the weakness other crimes evidence of the unlikelihood of such because supporting issue, and on' the Finally, being deaths accidental. other, degree to which excep- identity exception really is not probably be the evi- will roused right, spo- tion in its own rather but overmastering hostility. dence to supplementary purpose of ken of as a exception. McCormick, p. 451. another p. approach Id. This is one which exception signature The handiwork or support Dirring finds v. United appears applica- is the one which most cert, (1 1964), F.2d 512 Cir. although argument ble, defendant’s denied, 84 S.Ct. cyanosis among infants is too common (1964); L.Ed.2d and United States de- unusual constitute an and distinctive Hines, (3 470 F.2d 225 Cir. unerringly guilt pointing on her vice cert. den. 410 U.S. 93 S.Ct. part force, would not be without L.Ed.2d also United See many children not for fact so Hallman, U.S.App.D.C. 93, States experienced mercy con- (D.C. F.2d 603 These case, In dition. the defendant’s proposition cases stand for the that evi- out- “commonness” condition received, dence of other offenses weighed by frequency under circum- relevant, any purpose if other than could have stances where defendant propensity disposition mere show precipitating been the factor. part to commit defendant provided crime, judge the may that the trial we conclude that the evidence While probative generally the the acci- exclude evidence if its under was admissible outweighed signature exceptions, prefer by is dent we value risk that its the place upon admission dan- to decision will create a substantial our broader ground. ger prejudice fitting Simply of undue the to accused.9 probative Evidence, proposed 9. if its value is Federal excluded out- Rules of alia, danger Supreme weighed, unfair inter the which the transmitted to Court Congress embody prejudice. provides 20, 1972, the Rule 404 that evidence on November prove holdings permits to of other crimes not admissible of these cases. Rule 402 person of a in order to show the of all evidence. “the character admission “relevant” conformity permits acted therewith.” Rule to be that he 403 “relevant”

135 permit outset, poses, the not As we stated at the we law does prior employed prove prove acts to to think that the evidence would that the corpus relying principally upon delicti, a crime 1 had been committed because possibility Evidence, pp. Criminal remoteness that so Wharton’s 233 § (12 many custody in the 498-500 ed. states the infants care cyanotic episodes rule claimed defendant and defendant would cites suffer respiratory they Donaluzzi, difficulties if A. State v. 94 Vt. 109 (1920) wrongdo support not 57 to induced defendant’s statement. time, prove ing, authority Donaluzzi and at the rule same would weak identity wrong of defendant as the that evidence of other acts not be Indeed, persua prove corpus doer. used to the evidence is so delicti.11 The necessary opinion sive and so case of infanti Donaluzzi be read prior mean cide or other suffocation that the child abuse exclusive use wrongdoer acts, apprehended, if more, is to be without cannot establish clearly corpus that we think its relevance delicti. This contrasts with outweighs present prejudicial independ- its effect on the case where there was argument jury.10 reject proof corpus ent of the defendant’s delicti in the cir- proof death, although that the was not so clear and con cumstances of Paul’s not vincing admissibility beyond fact, not should reasonable doubt. In Donaluzzi, be sustained. As we out stated at the court did find set, regard prior if the dence of evidence with to each act relevant and separately, admission, child is considered it is true there was no error in its so that some of the incidents are less con that the statement that the evidence was others; prove corpus than clusive think but we delic- admissible collectively, appears incidents must be considered ti to be dictum. The other au- they are, pat and when unmistakable thorities which defendant relies seem emerges. stronger. pattern They tern That overwhelm little eases were either ingly guilt. establishes defendant’s in which there was a total lack of corpus delicti, evidence of or mere dic- Admissibility C. Evidence corpus might tum not be delicti Corpus Prove Delicti. For the reasons proved by prior evidence of acts.12 stated, sufficiency of the evidence of (a) happened children, cited, Counsel what have not nor other have found, any (b) proof death, we case which of the fact of Paul’s considers (c) government’s expert whether or not acts can be used to testi- mony probable corpus murder, death, establish the cause of corpus apparent. but the law clear that acts delicti was seems argues proved strenuously, however, Defendant can be de establish arson,13 pur- that even if licti of and also that confes- admissible other not, however, Rule 404 would Donaluzzi exclude evi- have been omitted from the sec- corresponding dence of other crimes 1 § when offered “for tion 233. Wharton’s purposes.” (13 also Criminal Evidence 241 ed. See our recent deci- Baggett, (June sion in U. S. v. 481 F.2d 114 State, (Okl. 12. v. P.2d 1111 Wollaston 358 19, 1973). Cr.1961), (dictum) ; State, Lewis v. 335 P. Although (Okl.Cr.1959) (dictum) average juror, ; 2d 654 v. when con- Wrather evidence, State, fronted with such could 179 Tenn. 169 S.W.2d have little (prior guilt, (1943) unlikely doubt of defendant’s acts too inconclusive to be is not that, Sherrill, relevant) ; in view of the abundant evidence of State S.W.2d (St. (total Louis, Mo.Ct.App.1928) defendant’s emotional distress the loss or lack Davis, child, corpus delicti) ; recognize illness of each he would State (1926) (total pitiable lack there was a Mo. absence of some S.W. corpus delicti). personality factor which' permit engage repeat- would in such Sehleigh, P.2d 210 Or. State ed conduct. by sponta- 341, (1957) (repeated fires 348 eight along Wharton, unlikely; fires 11. In combustion the 13th edition of neous country immediately after defend- statement of the rule and the one road citation 136 alleged prove may upon conduct not in those first [the be relied sion eight] . . corpus . counts indict- if there is other corrobor- regard charge independent ating evidence, ment.” to the With short murder, premeditation prove

proof delicti, it instructed that corpus aforethought necessary reliability The rule malice of the confession.14 ap- elements of the crime and that equally “[n]o in seem cases of arson would fact, small, murder, no matter how no circum- plicable the rule in cases stance, trivial, regard matter how which close bears a with confessions questions prove analogy bears malice of other acts use aforethought premeditation should in the hold that murder. We therefore escape by you careful as consideration in- of the incidents instant case jury.” volving members of the other children was admissible prove corpus murder and delicti of Defendant contends that it was other acts of child abuse. error for the district to have de court in her Alleged clined to instruct accordance Errors in Instructions D. requests defend Regarding Nos. 8 14.15 While Evidence Consideration ant concedes that the first sentence not Prior Acts. The district court did requested case, instruction No. 14 but comment on given, she contends that it was error for jury de- instructed that “[t]he any the district court not to have limited not on fendant is trial act charged in whether the accused did the act ant, “a and others drove show Ms father may (information). them”) ; plan Nor indictment v. State to set deliberate any (Mo.1949) (proof such be considered for other Smith, 221 S.W.2d 158 whatever, jury purpose find unless the fire show that admissible to fire was standing case, incendiary) ; in the charged that other evidence in indictment beyond alone, 218, People Wolf, a reasonable doubt establishes N.E. 619 v. 334 Ill. 165 charged (1929) (proof separate in the the accused did the act fires admissible (information). Ritter, delicti) prove corpus ; indictment v. State beyond jury (proof (1921) 381, If should find reason- 231 606 288 Mo. prior S.W. prove in the able from the other evidence doubt fires admissible to charged 65, ; People Jones, delicti) case that the accused did the act 55 P. v. 123 Cal. jury (information) burning then the (1898) (proof the indictment may of other build 698 alleged corpus delicti). ings evidence as ear- consider Con admissible to determining nature, 1, State, lier of a like offense 105 N.E. Kahn 182 Ind. tra : v. (1914). the state of mind or intent with which 385 charged act in the indict- accused did the (information). States, 84, Opper all of the ment And where 75 348 U.S. United alleged (1954) ; 158, earlier offense of like elements of an 99 L.Ed. 101 United S.Ct. (4 Waller, evidence which is nature are established F.2d 314 Cir. States cert, may, conclusive, denied, 1963), but clear and 84 S.Ct. 377 U.S. obliged to, (1964) ; and find draw the inference v.. not 12 L.Ed .2d 309 Jordan cert, doing charged (4 Cir.), States, indict- the act de F.2d United (information), nied, acted will- ment the accused L.Ed. 549 287 U.S. 53 S.Ct. specific intent, Ansani, fully (1932) ; and not be- 138 F. and with United States Supp. 454, (N.D.Ill.1956), inno- F. mistake or accident or other aff’d 240 cause of cert, nom., (7 sub cent reason. denied 2d 216 request 14 : Defendant’s No. Milner v. any trial for act The defendant is not on 1 L.Ed .2d alleged in counts of or conduct not those indictment, request refer to Paul David 15. Defendant’s No. 8: However, you have heard evidence have com- Woods. The fact the accused instances and the Government time is not of other mitted an offense at some that, a later that evidence seeks to establish evidence or time, whatever willfully knowingly commit- the offense defendant accused committed charged. (information), charged with which she ted the act in the indictment you may though evidence of na- consider the are of like Therefore even both offenses purpose alleged limited earlier of- incidents for that as to an ture. Evidence may give purpose you it such therefore be and for that of a like nature fense appropriate. determining weight you jury, deem considered relating allegedly testimony to also prior jury’s offenses so of consideration taken into account might in other children be jury them not consider that the eight by you in connection with deciding she committed whether relating Paul indictment, to charged counts of the indictment in the crimes of the record An examination Woods.” evidence could be considered that such granted determining the motion by only her that the court jury in shows acquittal judgment to they other for found from of mind if state theory relating Judy on the to committed counts that the crimes only defendant’s uncorroborated that actor. and that she was the criminal Judy are, course, had suf- statements indicated contentions Defendant’s lacking independent cyanosis and, regarding position fered her consistent with le- corroboration, statements were necessity these gally prior the com- insufficient to establish other than that of the events, The defendant’s' con- mission of a crime.16 have decided these but we argument grounded primarily follows, on Ashe adversely It we tentions to her. 1189, 436, Swenson, think, objections to the failure U.S. S.Ct. charge rejected. (1970), and United 25 L.Ed.2d 469 to should likewise be (2 Kramer, F.2d 909 where Unlike cases States prior held the doctrine limit- crimes is admissible necessary estoppel applied purposes in criminal ed collateral and where it is i.e., proper give limiting instructions, prosecutions, “that when an issue prior determined dence of ultimate fact has once been events was admissible judgment, prove issue valid and final here to both that Paul was again litigated victim of and that defendant cannot be between infanticide parties perpetrator lawsuit.” was the In future crime. same case, therefore, this court at 1194. district 397 U.S. at limiting jury’s in not was correct estoppel reliti Collateral bars prior consideration gation proceedings subsequent requested events as defendant. fact, mixed determinations of those Defendant also contends that when law, essential fact and that were granted judgment acquittal original decision. Yates charging Judy three counts abuse of at 298, 336, 77 S.Ct. government’s case, the close of the (1957). doctrine L.Ed.2d 1356 permitting district court was error in party attempting to from also bars a jury consider evidence con- sought prove fact he un a second time a cerning determining Judy in action, successfully guilt or innocence of In Paul’s death. of a since “the nonexistence fact submitting re- case with judgment no than less established spect Paul, the district court instruct- Yates, at its existence.” 77 S.Ct. ed, “[ajlthough granted Court has 1085; States, 332 v. United U.S. Sealfon acquittal the motion for of the defend- 237, 92 L.Ed. 180 68 S.Ct. ant as to the three counts of the indict- authority ex Ashe and are Sealfon relating Judy Woods, ment neverthe- amining complete ini record of the less, alleg- testimony concerning events lit what has been tial trial to determine edly relating Judy on or about Woods igated September and decided. and the other times well, government argues appeared Opper the medical testi- 16. The she that under where cyanosis symptoms Smith, produced mony respect supra, it had sufficient brought symptoms justify can be evidence to denial of the defendant’s how judgment acquittal. about, defendant. acts of the motion for and the That evi- however, express view, the cor- dence consisted of the words of the defend- We ruling. hospital records, district court’s ant as embodied rectness of the Judy hospitals fact was taken to two case, In this the “ultimate” or fact Since the decision in Furman v. Geor- original gia, “fact essential to the decision” 408 U.S. 92 L. 33 gov- regard Judy (1972), with Ed.2d 346 the statute under ernment had failed to introduce suffi- which defendant was convicted of first independent degree murder, cient evidence defend- pro- 18 U.S.C. § only possible ant’s statements to corroborate vides those as the “im- sentence prisonment statements crime Additionally, that a establish for life.” against Judy. had been The committed did not ask for the death ruling penalty course, district court’s did not discredit in this case. Of any applies otherwise reach conclusion as to C. 4202 also and that statute § themselves; years’ inde- statements their makes fifteen incarceration a con- pendent legitimacy precedent parole relevance or eligibility was not dition for ruling. a fact ultimate or essential to the imprison- offenders sentenced to life ment. reading supported by Our the sim- ple considering charges fact 4208(a)(2), permits Section which involving Paul, in- district court district court to make a sentenced of- jury might structed the that it consider eligible parole fender for at time as such concerning Judy. the evidence could We may determine, Parole Board irre- presume lightly not that the court would spective fixing any requirement permit consider the a minimum sentence as a condition concerning Judy if it had concluded that precedent parole eligibility, en- defendant was innocent of misconduct part acted as 4208 Pub.L. 85- § Judy toward rather than that there was (August 25, 1958). 72 Stat. 845 a mere technical failure of Section 7 Pub.L. 85-752 its terms prove such conduct. any apply states that not “does § view, therefore, In our the ver provided offense for which there is acquittal Judy respect dict of with mandatory legislative penalty”, and the adjudication

did not constitute an history of Pub.L. 85-752 stated that the defendant committed no acts of miscon purpose of the enactment was “to assure against Judy. duct The defendant’s mandatory penalties provided that by regarding Judy statements were suffi special categories statute for ciently relevant, incriminating and nec crime, robbery post such as armed of a essary prosecution, for the to overbal office . . . shall not be affected.” any prejudice might they cause, ance S.Rep. Cong, (1958); No. 2 U.S.Code meeting admissibility thus for test Admin.News, Cong., 85th 2nd Sess. government properly acts. The At the time of its enact- continued to use these statements as evi ment, penalty robbery for armed aof tending together prove, dence with post twenty-five office years, with children, the other statutory provision authorizing that defendant had committed a criminal imposition penalty. pen- of a lesser against act Paul. alty robbery post for armed of a office accordingly has been considered a man-

III. datory penalty by federal courts and one imposed Defendant’s final contention is which not be under § that the 4208(a)(2). Cameron, district court was in error when United States (7 1965); concluded that the verdict of 351 F.2d 448 United guilty degree Paul, Hardaway, (6 of first murder of F.2d States defendant could Additionally, not be sentenced to life Cir. the imprisonment Appeals under States Court of for U.S.C. the District § 4208(a)(2) eligible so as to render her of Columbia Circuit has stated that parole degree offense of first time the Parole under the murder might Board determine. find no District of Columbia Code which carries merit penalty imprisonment the contention. of life is a my holding, “mandatory” penalty the reason for dis- under Pub.L. 85- sent will not further mentioned defendant convicted be here. so that a disagreement degree my treat sen- I the same murder majority young the conclusion of the offender under that the properly as a adult tenced evidence, also effect of such if of Pub.L. 85-752 even 7§ “mandatory” admitted, inapplicable where a should not be limited makes proper provided. instruction. I would find it un- sentence is United States necessary U.S.App.D.C. 10, application F.2d to consider the Howard, 146 1971). Swenson, supra, (D.C. 1086,1092-1093 Ashe v. for the Cir. concerning Judy should have been pro- sentence think that the life We stricken from consideration for the same indistin- for in 1111 is vided 18 U.S.C. § concerning reasons the evidence the oth- imposed guishable from the life sentence er children should not been admit- have degree murder under the Dis- for first ted. per- are trict of Columbia Code. We I to the decisions of am convinced that suaded follow defendant Seventh, the Sixth and the District here did not receive fair trial a because prior occurrences, fitting are direct au- the evidence of Columbia Circuits which recognized thority exception general dis- no for the conclusion that the rule, highly inflammatory in the instant case was with- was so trict court authority impose being prejudicial, life sentence out a as well as neither 4208(a)(2). plain, clear, convincing, under note that 18 nor nor that it § prohibits probation any either should U.S.C. not have admitted for been § pun- purpose, suspended purposes. or a sentence for crimes much less for all imprisonment, life such as ishable Through years, the courts of this degree murder, are not so that we general circuit have adhered rule problem which met with troubled alleged that evidence of not crimes States, court in F.2d Jones v. United against the defendant within the indict- (8 ; 1969) namely, Cir. that if may ment not be adduced at trial as robbery post sentence for armed of- a g., guilt. of the defendant’s E. fice deemed under 18 U.S.C. States, Benton v. United 233 F.2d 491 mandatory, guilty a defendant found (4th 1956); Lovely United Cir. given placed probation could be or a 1948); States, (4th 169 F.2d 386 Cir. suspended not sentence but could be Simpkins States, United 78 F.2d 594 eligible prior parole made to serivce (4th twenty-five year of one-third of the sen- Supreme The Court has adhered to tence. rule I consider us same which binds Affirmed. only by way precedent, but also as supported by policy matter sound Judge WIDENER, (dissent- Circuit justice. Mr. reason and Justice Jackson ing) : underlying considerations articulated majori- respectfully I from the dissent support accepted rule of ty opinion in- it relates to evidence of as criminal in Michelson v. concerning children, cidents may especially such evidence as holds (1948): L.Ed. 168 of the be considered agency (which include criminal follow the common-law “Courts that agree accused). part III I with unanimously have tradition almost opinion the sentence. of the prose- resort come disallow de- evidence of a agree majori- kind of cution I While do not with to establish fendant’s evil character ty occurrences that the evidence of guilt. probability signa- his under either was admissible not show exception The State or to show lack acci- ture law, specific gives majority trouble dent, no reason since the among propriate circumstances, acts, ill fame though his courts have ad- or criminal neighbors, prior-crime facts mitted evidence for several even such purposes. might logically persuasive that he additional A case case perpetra- analysis yield by propensity probable might of these decisions following inquiry exceptions: (1) tor The is not to com- of the crime. rejected plete story crime; (2) is irrele- because character vant; contrary, larger show the it is said existence of a continu- ing weigh plan, conspiracy; (3) scheme, and to too much with the overpersuade prejudge them as to show that other so crimes accused general nearly record are one with a bad so identical earmark accused; deny opportunity him to defend them as the a fair handiwork of the charge. against particular (4) propensity to show a illicit toward overriding excluding policy particular per- sexual such ev- relations with the idence, despite probative concerned; (5) admitted son to show act value, practical experience for which the is accused is on trial was not prevent inadvertent, accidental, its disallowance tends to con- unintentional issues, surprise knowledge; (6) fusion of unfair and without to establish mo- prejudice.” tive; (7) malice, undue 469, 335 to U.S. 475- show deliberation or will; 213, (8) 476, 218, prove identity; ill (9) 69 S.Ct. 93 L.Ed. 168. to tending show admissions conduct States, v. In are Hall United accord 150 justice punishment obstruct or to avoid 76, 22, 14 S.Ct. 37 L.Ed. 1003 U.S. present crime; (10) for the impeach (1893) Boyd States, v. United 142 the accused after he testifies on his own 450, 292, 12 L.Ed. U.S. 35 1077 behalf. See McCormick on Evidence § stated, previously weAs have 190, (2d 1972).2 at 448-51 ed. merely this is not a technical rule of law; rather, it reflects the “fundamen- Even when the trial court determines justice tal demand for and fairness prior that evidence of a act or crime is jurispru- which lies at the basis of our coming admissible as within one Lovely States, dence.” v. United 169 F. exceptions general rule, to the it still 386, (4th 1948). 2d 389 Cir. proof must determine whether the applying excluding prior In the rule act quality is of a sufficient permit prior dence of a admissibility, its crimes or courts acts, recognized held, we have uniformity, have a number of considerable exceptions falling exceptions circumscribed that in which cases ad- under mit evidence introduced for rule it some rele- is essential purpose prior showing vant plain, other than a act or offense be clear probably prior defendant conclusive. committed the Evidence Accordingly, vague crime. prior acts of or uncertain is character permitted States, acts or crimes has been admissible. Kraft v. United purposes proving 794, limited (8th 1956).3 238 F.2d knowl- 802 Cir. edge, Also, Consequently, intent ap- apparent and motive.1 it should be Baldivid, 1. authority, United States v. 2. I 465 F.2d have found 1277 no and none has (4th 1972) ; court, permits proof Cir. United States v. been cited Mastroto cert, taro, (4th Cir.), prior den., 455 acts, F.2d 802 crimes or much less prior occurrences, acceptable 92 S.Ct. 32 L.Ed.2d 666 as an means (1972) ; Smith, proving majority United States v. F.2d delicti. The (4th 1971) ; agrees goes Cir. United States v. with this Sam so far as homicide but uel, (4th exception 1970) ; 431 F.2d 610 finds Cir. for arson cases and cases Dutsch, (4th involving v. States 357 F.2d 331 Cir. confessions. Samuel, p. Machen, We said F.2d at 612: See also United States v. 430 F. (7th 1970) (crisp, concise, “Such evidence is admissible 2d where it Cir. purposes persuasive) ; is Canal, relevant for some than to Labiosa 198 F.2d accused, (4th 1952) (clear). show that because is he a man 284-285 Cir. character, of criminal committed the crime charged.” merely merely suspicious the evi- prior dice is not cured because oc- evidence of exception an dence falls within for clear currences substitute rule; prejudice'remains inherent proof. conclusive testimony.” assuming Yet, proffered evi- balancing test, given exception applying In the con- dence of acts fits convincing confronting proven by district siderations and is clear and succinctly: evidence, reputable as- court be summarized authori- considerable suming exception appli- ty inquiry the rule maintains court’s admitting completed. admissibility cable, even then before evidence of is not giv- crimes, still should acts or should deter- Careful consideration court mine, prejudicial potential first, the evi- is rele- en to the whether the evidence vant; secondly, dence of other whether the evidence is acts or crimes Judge unduly notwithstanding jurors. prejudicial As Sobeloff minds relevancy; and, having thirdly, cautioned in in United met his dissent States both Baldivid, prior tests, truly (4th whether 465 F.2d the evidence is danger preju- prosecution.5 Cir. “the of undue needed Phillips, already 401 F.2d See United States defendant a case clouded with (7th 1968) ; 305-306 DeVore v. Cir. emotional issues. (9th Indeed, emphasis 368 F.2d 396 United 1966). I find that such on need perilously a rule in the law comes close to Compare Proposed may justify Buies of Federal of evidence that means, the end Evidence, balancing my depar- Rule which offers at such a inhibition excluding test relevant evidence under cer- ture from the law tradition is common my tain circumstances: the dissent. While executive root of the “Although relevant, government frequently, be ex- branch of necessity, must of probative if is cluded value substan- make the decision as to need as tially outweighed by danger evidence, against consequences securing unfair the in prejudice, issues, given dignity mis- confusion of the or be such balance should not jury, by admissibility leading by ascertaining the or considerations of in the courts delay, time, exception general needless undue waste of or an the rule. absent to presentation any balancing prop- of cumulative evidence.” The use of need in test prejudice” by erly ought applying, “Unfair is defined the in a to be limited to Advi- sory tendency exclusionary negative sense, rule, “an Committee as undue an not to suggest improper basis, bolstering admissibility. decision on an com- Evi- McCormick on monly, though necessarily, dence, 157, clearly points an emotional 1954 Ed. § out, one.” the be used as and advocates that test Baldivid, admissibility admissibility, In the an of the a further not as limit knowledge dence under ception the intent ex- extension of it. acknowledged. proposed The difference Rule of the Federal Rules of preju- 4) together (see in the court was on of the the extent n. must be read Evidence majority 404(b), quoted below, adopting the here does not de- as Since with Rule dice.. pend signature existing evidence, limited, or lack of accident how- the rules of exceptions, apply weighing Judge ever, by I need not the as advocated McCormick and applied precisely test in the same sense as in Sobeloff’s dissent Baldivid. The comment by deep- 404(b) explains in the dissent Baldivid. rule is so to Rule the ly jurisprudence as as- imbedded our majority by weigh- 5. Tlie alters the balance proportions. sume almost constitutional plus ing the relevance of the evidence the Thus, majority the decision the takes against prejudice need for the evidence the departure. new applies resulting the the defendant. It also 404(b)— Rule “(b) exception finding an test without gain admissibility. crimes, wrongs, Other or acts. Evi- infirmity in this crimes, wrongs, dence of other or acts is the evi- formulation is that as the need for not admissible to the character of a increases, probative dence value de- person in that he acted in order to show will be admissi- crease and still the evidence conformity therewith. This subdivision today’s given ble. This new test ruling, effect does not exclude the evidence when of- need, accompanied by if elevates proof purposes, as fered for other such slightest probative value, to the status of intent, preparation, motive, opportunity, exception This, compelling cases. plan, knowledge, identity, absence of coupled course, a limit- with the absence of protection ing instruction, gives mistake or accident.” no testimony light, jury of- able doubt. When the Viewed find these government established, inquiry fered inci- next identity involving agency; other than Paul of the dents children criminal too, improperly this, D. admitted. Woods must established be- yond only doubt, prop- was it inadmissible to establish reasonable Not but corpus erly part delicti, corpus no meet it also failed to delicti.”9 plain, clear conclusive test as to government case, In the instant quality required. The re- attempted corpus to establish the delicti sulting prejudicial effect agency and the criminal of the accused outweighed probative so of the value alleged for the murder of Paul Woods its admission was reversi- stages. stage two The first involved the grant error. I ble would a new trial. testimony, hospital consideration corpus relating autopsy only The ancient doctrine of delicti records developed prevent stage conviction Paul Woods. The second involved a crime never committed. consideration of Black- records and testimo- See (Lewis ny, stone, Commentaries, opinion at 358-59 bolstered of Dr. De- Maio, past ed. one commentator has not- As occurrences ed, “the is wherein execution an innocent man other children ill- had suffered tragic equally allegedly ness under matter what caused similar circum- justice miscarry case, stances, in his but some whom died and some shocking it- seems most where the crime whom did not. self is found to have been nonexistent.6 forcibly Examination the record Accordingly, adopted law common demonstrates, majority opinion as the corpus the two elements of concedes, the failure of the homicide eases and insisted that to establish either delicti or be made not the fact of agency criminal accused victim, death of the but also that death through relating solely to Paul was occasioned criminal means.7 government’s principal Woods. The wit- recognized Federal courts have and subject corpus ness on the of delicti was corpus applied delicti of definition DeMaio, Dr. Vincent J. the forensic prosecutions, requiring in murder pathologist performed autopsy who the beyond proved both rea- elements rendering opinion, on Paul. Before sonable In v. United doubt.8 Evans Dr. hospital DeMaio considered the States, (10th 122 F.2d 465 Cir. Hopkins records of Paul Woods at Johns 1941), scope the court defined the of Hospital, Army Kirk Hospital, and Wal- following doctrine in terms: Hospital; autopsy ter Reed General corpus delicti, “The performed; hom- as relates to which he oral testi- icide, composed mony is of pertaining two elements: of witnesses to Paul (a) person alleged history. The upon facts, death of the to Wood’s Based those killed; (b) have been crim- only that some Dr. DeMaio testified that he was agency inal caused such death. . . certain that “the death was most 75% probably course, Of logical both of elements these a homicide.” As a cor- beyond must ollary, be established a reason- he admitted there was a 25% Perkins, Corpus Murder, majority 6. problem squarely The Delicti of 48 9. The faces (1962). prior Va.Law Rev. 173-74 and decides that of occurrences prove is admissible to not the death See, g., 7. e. 1 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence agency someone, and criminal of but also (12th 1955) ; Lefave, 17 at ed. Crimi- agency Opinion the criminal of the accused. (1972). nal Law 4§ at 16-17 p. Commonwealth, 15-16. Cf. Bowie v. States, 381, 389, (1945) (Proof Evans v. United 122 F.2d Va. 35 S.E.2d 345 (10th charge compared). Evans, Cir. cert. den. 314 U.S. See also (1942) ; Murray supra. 86 L.Ed. 558 1008, 1016, App. United 288 F. D.C. 119 Being admitting justify unable to of Paul Woods the death chance authorities, proffered evidence causes.10 was due to natural analogies majority draws from arson corpus prove delicti uti- Unable Upon inspection, and confession cases. solely relating lizing Paul however, of such class cases of- neither Woods, to evi- turned persuasive support fers use of involving chil- past of dence occurrences prior prove of dence occurrences my In dren other than Paul Woods. agency criminal of hom- the accused improper on opinion, evidence was such Wolf, Analysis People icide trial. of any ex- any It within account. was not supra, upon by majority, relied rule; highly preju- ception it was testimony example, of discloses trial; context of this dicial prior primary acts for the was admitted most or of such failed all showing purpose of a connected scheme evidentiary required meet standard i.e., purpose, to defraud an insurance plain, equal clear and conclusive. Of company, apparently and then al- authority or total force lack purposes. lowed be considered for all precedent permitting use squarely But where the issue has been crimes, evidence of much less presented, courts have refused to admit corpus occurrences, prove delicti such evidence to in a homicide.11 autopsy. Signed Mag- opinion tifus” —No Sol a 75-25 I am that evidence of gied, prose- place percentage M.D. in a criminal has no province d. Exhibit John Wise —Ohio Death Cert. is an invasion of cution. It “diptheria.” jury. 15-B. Died 12-26-46 Signed Gravis, Autopsy very B. John M.D. the rele- I am doubtful further performed (Exh. 15-C) vancy competency R. M. Hart- De- most Dr. testimony well. two in view of at least Maio’s First, e. Lillie Marie Stewart —Ohio Death Cert. factors. occurrences Exhibit 16-B. “Fulmi- Died 5-18-58 remote in time: which he testified were nating pneumonia” “broncholitis.” more Wise died Charles and John Stewart Signed by Schmelzer, Mary trial; M.D. au- years Whether E. Huston than 25 before topsy performed years; cer- years; indicated —21 Carol A. Huston —20 years; tificate. Marian Lillie Marie Stewart —14 autopsy f. Marian L. re- years. Rash —Colorado Mach- Rash —8 See States v. port. Signed by en, (7th Exhibit 17-E. Lt. Col. 430 F.2d Sec- Clearkin, M.D. ond, examined, Child died 5-4-64 attend- Dr. DeMaio neither Autopsy performed ed, autopsies immedi- performed bronchiolitis. nor ately. physicians did these children. who qualified certainly to tes- were almost more authority support There 1 1. is considerable Yet, tify as to trial the cause death. ing proposition of other the that evidence certificates, presumed be cor- their death allegedly involving the accused occurrences by rect, outweighed be have been allowed to purpose for of estab is not admissible the opinion in some cases evidence arrived lishing corpus in a case. delicti homicide the twenty-five years later. very question have considered the signed by physi- Death certificates were Lovely, presented by way of dicta in here prior death, in Marian cians other than each p. rape case, supra, in a F.2d at him, au- Rash. the contains an For record emphasis by way that evi- which we said of may topsy report. following The information tendency rape prior dence of a had more be summarized: plan the scheme within to establish or “ Death a. Charles Lewis Stewart —Ohio meaning similar rule . than of the . . of Cert. Exhibit Died 8-23-46 12-C. burglary prior or homicide incidents aof Thymus” Lymphat- “Enlarged and “Status admissible would render evidence thereof by Gravis, Signed B. M.D. icus.” John [Emphasis add- a trial those offenses.” Mary Death b. Elizabeth Huston —Ohio ed] Lovely, Judge Cert. Exhibit 13-D. Died 8-25-50 I im- find it Parker With plug” “Asphyxiation possible due mucous ad- a rule which will understand autopsy. “patent proof guilt No foramen ovale.” which would as mit evidence Signed Richardson, by proof M.D. F. even as the bad inadmissible be put if the she character of the defendant c. Carol Ann Death Cert. Huston —Ohio p. Lovely, “Epiglot- matter issue. 14-D. Died 5-12-52 of Exhibit by govern- cases, more In no instance the The cited confession of arson.12 over, involving quite inapposite since ment children was seem by sub defendant convicted leged the crimes al- itself, if corroborated confession government; evidence, supplies independent she nor was stantial charged evidentiary problems, even proof. indicted or the com- with cases, re then, than mission of such crimes. To the con- rather confession involving corpus trary, lating proof each instance occurrences, con death of another child formal death proof should of similar autopsy report certificate or issued trustworthi of the cern establishment stating the child inde died of natural causes confession and some ness of the naming touching corpus de the disorder.15 pendent may the confession be licti so compelling A review of brief the more admitted13 illustrations Charles useful. prematurely support, unable, then, ei- was born find Lewis Stewart I am 1946 and died less months lat- by precedent than two force of reason- or ther ing, government’s testimony in- position majority er. The for the of the review prior volved a Dr. DeMaio of is admissi- occurrences hospital corpus delicti, death certificate whether ble gave opinion records. From those he an include not it be said to Indeed, the cause of agency death could not have of the criminal accused. enlarged thymus prior certified on been as me it is clear to that such use medical impermissible the certificate since recent erosion is an occurrences thinking been it normal policy underpinnings has com- of the enlarged thymus. to have an requirement children mon law Nevertheless, trial, Dr. DeMaio admitted delicti. In the context of this leading hospi- symptoms bootstrap operation has allow- become were with tal admission as consistent ing to circumvent diagnosed condition of malnutrition major case, element of its they government’s ought error. allowance to be reversible smothering. theory of He admitted Regardless purpose for which that, given malnutrition, he could not sought finding argue death was evidence of occurrences is with a that the death, crib he stated a natural introduced, is never to be such evidence diagnosis generally the for death now clear, proven by plain, unless admissible to an en- which used be attributed and conclusive evidence. Here lies larged thymus. objec- equally for an fundamental basis government’s tion to the use of Wise, The death in 1946 of John nephew, occurrences.14 ex- offers another State, (4th Waller, N.E. 385 Kahn v. 182 Ind. F.2d 314 United States (Ind.1914). Reversing con- a lower court den. 84 S.Ct. cert. arson, Supreme Court the Indiana viction 12 L.Ed.2d in Kahn noted: than one for which “Other crimes accompany- 14. cited note 3 and See cases permit- trial are never defendant ing also note text. See 10. de- shown to ted to be permissible only in the trial It licti. are, rule, general charge, 15. As a death certificates where in those cases a criminal prima by statute, facts constituting facie in- evidence of under crime the act in- vestigation clearly Each here therein. of the states stated has established been provisions. motive, intent, guilty Ann. had such Md.Code knowl- volved edge (Repl. 1971) ; is an issue.” of the defendant Colo.Rev. vol. § Art. 43 385, N.E. 386. (1963) ; Rev.Code Ohio 66-8-24 § Statutes (1953). Ann. 3705.05 States, Opper g., 348 U.S. 13. E. United (1954) ; note also L.Ed. See 75 S.Ct. ample evidence occur- where “Guilt criminal case must be proved beyond con- rence fell far the clear and below reasonable doubt and vincing According evidence standard. confined to that which long autopsy experience find- death certificate the common-law ings, tradition, diphtheria. The John Wise died some extent embodied in government’s Constitution, crystallized established that own has into two children were taken from rules of evidence consistent with that during historically same the same week standard. household These rules are grounded rights hospital system, unit with isolation similar of our devel- diphtheria. oped safeguard The men cases severe from dubious unjust convictions, resulting dence adduced challenge life, finding liberty proper- death natural forfeitures of that, ty.” Dr. DeMaio statement autopsy, performed had he he would my opinion, In the defendant was denied preferred have the neck or- examine safeguards those here. diag- gans in order to certain I would reverse and remand a new diphtheria. Indeed, he admitted nosis trial. diagnosis consistent with diphtheria. government’s includ- also

ed other occurrences where children five presence the defendant’s or under

care suffered death. The death certifi- In

cates are summarized note 10. instance, govern- DeMaio,

each Dr. witness, ment’s chief his reasons stated SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPA disagreeing specific with the find- al., NY et Plaintiffs- ings autopsy in each death certificate or Appellants, report. every case, however, In Dr. DeMaio careful state ev- Doyle al., et COMBS Defendants- idence was inconsistent with a natu- Appellees. my opinion, In ral death. such evidence 73-1525, Nos. 73-1526. dismally was inconclusive and failed Appeals, States Court of required plain, meet standard Sixth Circuit. clear, and conclusive. Aug. highly prejudicial In view na- deaths, ture of the evidence of other admitting

is clear that error in other deaths should entitle

the defendant to a new trial. This is

not a case of error harmless since “there possibility [improp-

is a reasonable

er to the convic- evidence] contributed Fahy Connecticut,

tion.” 229,11

84 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 171

I feel admission of other-oc- severely impaired

currence

fairness of this trial to the defendant. Brinegar Supreme

As the noted Court

v. United U.S. (1949) 93 L.Ed. 1879 :

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Martha L. Woods

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Date Published: Sep 12, 1973

Citation: 484 F.2d 127

Docket Number: 72-2217

Court Abbreviation: 4th Cir.