U.S. v. One Feather, 82-2339

Decision Date28 March 1983
Docket NumberNo. 82-2339,82-2339
Citation702 F.2d 736
Parties12 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1516 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Frederick James ONE FEATHER, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Drew C. Johnson, Aberdeen, S.D., for appellant.

Philip N. Hogen, U.S. Atty., R.P. Murley, John J. Ulrich, Asst. U.S. Attys., Sioux Falls, S.D., for appellee.

Before HEANEY, McMILLIAN and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Frederick James One Feather was convicted by a jury of rape on an Indian reservation in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1153 and 2031 (1976). The District Court 1 sentenced him to 25 years' imprisonment. On appeal One Feather contends that the trial court erred in (1) denying his motion to appoint an independent expert, (2) admitting prejudicial photographs of the victim's injuries, and (3) limiting the cross-examination of the victim. We reject One Feather's contentions and affirm.

I.

On the morning of July 15, 1982, Rhea Jean Brown Wolf, an Indian, was walking into town when One Feather, with whom she was previously acquainted, drove up and offered her a ride into town. Upon entering the car she discerned that he had been drinking. One Feather offered her a beer; she refused and asked to be let out of the car. One Feather sped up the car, turned off on a side road, and hit her on the head three or four times with his fists. He then hit her with some sort of an instrument, causing a laceration on her head and knocking her unconscious. When she awoke, she was lying partly undressed in a ditch, and One Feather was on top of her. After completing the act of sexual intercourse, One Feather told Brown Wolf to get dressed. She again lost consciousness. Upon regaining consciousness Brown Wolf found herself again in the car. She attempted to flee from the moving car, sustained scraping injuries to her head, arms, and leg, and lost consciousness. When she came to, One Feather told her he was taking her home and would say he found her in her present condition. When they arrived, Brown Wolf's brother assisted her from the car into her home. She was taken to the hospital in an ambulance.

One Feather testified that Brown Wolf had solicited the ride, asked if he had any beer, and initiated and consented to the act of sexual intercourse. He alleged that her scraping injuries were sustained on the ride home when she got sick, opened the car door before he could stop the car, and fell out. He was unable to explain how she acquired the head laceration.

II.

At trial, the government's expert witness identified both "A" and "O" blood group substances in one stain on the victim's underwear. He testified that the presence of these substances was consistent with the presence of seminal stains from One Feather, "an 'A' type secretor," and vaginal secretions from Brown Wolf, "an 'O' type secretor." On cross-examination he testified that these substances could also indicate the presence of seminal fluids from both the defendant and a third person, who would have to be "an 'A' type secretor." He also testified that no specific test existed for identifying vaginal secretions. The expert's report also identified blood stains on Brown Wolf's clothing, some of which were her blood type and therefore resulted from her injuries, but tests run on one stain were inconclusive as to blood type because the amount of blood was too limited to make comparisons. The blood-stain report was not introduced in evidence.

One Feather contends that had the District Court granted his pretrial motion for appointment of an independent expert under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3006A(e) (1976), he could have buttressed his defense of consent with the following arguments: (1) the unidentified blood stain came from a third person who had attacked Brown Wolf immediately before or after the alleged rape, accounting for the laceration on her head; and (2) the two types of fluid stains on Brown Wolf's clothing came from two types of semen, indicating recent sexual intercourse with a third person and impeaching Brown Wolf's testimony.

The defendant has the burden of satisfying the court that expert services are necessary to present an adequate defense. United States v. Sailer, 552 F.2d 213 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 959, 97 S.Ct. 2687, 53 L.Ed.2d 278 (1977). Expert services need not be authorized for a "fishing expedition," but should be authorized "when underlying facts reasonably suggest that further exploration may prove beneficial to the accused in the development of a defense to the charge." 552 F.2d at 215, quoting United States v. Schultz, 431 F.2d 907, 911 (8th Cir.1970).

The underlying facts in this case do not suggest the slightest support for One Feather's theories that a third person may have assaulted Brown Wolf or had sexual intercourse with her at or about the time of the alleged rape. Furthermore, as to his first theory, no reasonable person could believe that a hypothetical assault occurred before the alleged rape. It is highly unlikely One Feather would engage in consensual sexual intercourse with Brown Wolf had she been suffering from a head laceration, and it stretches the limits of credibility to suggest that someone would have...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Mayer v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • June 2, 2015
    ...1991), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 418 (1992) (use of contraceptives inadmissible since use implies sexual activity); United States v. One Feather, 702 F.2d 736 (8th Cir. 1983) (birth of an illegitimate child inadmissible); State v. Carmichael, 727 P.2d 918, 925 (Kan. 1986) (evidence of venere......
  • United States v. Pendleton
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • August 12, 2016
    ...issue of whether she actually had been assaulted, and they showed the extent of the injuries she sustained. See United States v. One Feather , 702 F.2d 736, 739 (8th Cir. 1983) (upholding admission of photographs of an injury in part because they assisted the jury in evaluating the witness'......
  • People v. Melillo
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • May 29, 2001
    ...confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant"); United States v. One Feather, 702 F.2d 736, 739 (8th Cir.1983) (holding that, "The policy of Federal Rule of Evidence 412 [the federal rape shield statute], to guard against unwa......
  • The People v. Fontana
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 21, 2010
    ...889, 897, 226 Cal.Rptr. 285.) The potential prejudice of this evidence, on the other hand, was substantial. ( United States v. One Feather (8th Cir.1983) 702 F.2d 736, 739 [the policy of the rape shield law “to guard against unwarranted intrusion into the victim's private life[ ] may be tak......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT