United States v. Begay
| Decision Date | 15 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. CR 14-0747 JB,CR 14-0747 JB |
| Citation | 497 F.Supp.3d 1025 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Lyle Woody BEGAY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
John C. Anderson, United States Attorney, Novaline D. Wilson, Kyle T. Nayback, Assistant United States Attorneys, United States Attorney's Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.
Alexandra W. Jones, Jones Law Firm, LLC, Albuquerque, New Mexico --and-- Samuel L. Winder, Romero & Winder, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Defendant.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the United States’ First Motion in Limine , filed January 11, 2019 (Doc. 172)("First MIL");1 (ii) the United States’ Motion for a Lafler-Frye Hearing, filed January 11, 2019 (Doc. 173)("Lafler-Frye Motion"); (iii) the United States’ Sealed Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of the Victims’ Sexual Behavior and Predispositions, filed January 11, 2019 (Doc. 174)("Second MIL"); (iv) the United States’ Motion in Limine to Prohibit Discussion of Sentencing or Punishment at Trial, filed August 26, 2019 (Doc. 189)("Third MIL"); (v) the United States’ Motion in Limine for Pre-trial Determination of Indian Country Status, filed August 26, 2019 (Doc. 190)("Fourth MIL"); (vi) the United States’ Sealed Motion to Admit Evidence Pursuant to Rules 413, 414, and 404(b), filed August 26, 2019 (Doc. 192)("Fifth MIL"); (vii) the United States’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony at Trial, filed February 14, 2020 (Doc. 218)("Sixth MIL"); and (viii) the Defendant's Sealed Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Regarding Jail Calls, filed March 31, 2020 (Doc. 229)("Defense MIL"). The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court should preclude Defendant Lyle Woody Begay from argument, commentary, or inquiry at trial regarding his alleged victims’ sexual behavior and history; (ii) whether the Court should hold a hearing pursuant to Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134, 132 S.Ct. 1399, 182 L.Ed.2d 379 (2012), and Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 182 L.Ed.2d 398 (2012) (" Lafler - Frye hearing"), to determine whether Begay's counsel has effectively communicated the United States’ plea offer to Begay; (iii) whether the acts that the United States alleges Begay committed occurred in Indian Country such that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case; (iv) whether the Court should permit Plaintiff United States of America to admit evidence of Begay's uncharged prior sexual misconduct regarding the alleged victims in this case; (v) whether Dr. Davis’ proposed expert testimony is based on sufficiently reliable scientific principles and methods to be admissible pursuant to rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence ; (vi) whether evidence of calls that Begay made from jail between October, 2019, and February, 2020, is relevant and not unfairly prejudicial; (vii) whether the Court should prohibit Begay from discussing any alleged misconduct by the United States at trial; (viii) whether the Court should prohibit Begay from impeaching the United States’ witnesses with prior administrative discipline; (ix) whether the Court should prohibit Begay from discussing at trial any issues relating to his health; and (x) whether the Court should prohibit Begay from arguing or introducing evidence about topics that only he knows. The Court concludes that: (i) Begay may not comment, inquire, or argue at trial regarding his alleged victims’ sexual behavior and history, because rule 412 of the Federal Rules of Evidence prohibits evidence of an alleged victim's sexual behavior and history in a criminal trial involving sexual misconduct; (ii) the Court will hold a Lafler - Frye hearing to determine whether Begay was adequately informed of the United States’ plea offers; (iii) the acts that the United States alleges occurred in the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation, and so the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction; (iv) the United States may introduce evidence of Begay's uncharged conduct, because it is relevant and not unfairly prejudicial; (v) Dr. Davis may testify regarding police interrogation tactics, but may not testify regarding false-confession theory, because the Court concludes that false-confession theory is not sufficiently reliable to be admissible pursuant to rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence ; (vi) the Court will not generally exclude evidence of calls that Begay made from jail between October, 2019, and February, 2020, unless Begay identifies specific calls that he asserts must be excluded and demonstrates why they must be excluded; (vii) the Court will not at this time prohibit Begay from discussing government misconduct, because the United States does not identify any specific evidence that it wishes to exclude; (viii) at this time, the Court will not prohibit Begay from impeaching the United States’ witnesses with prior administrative discipline, because the United States does not specify the evidence it wishes to exclude; (ix) at this time, the Court will not prohibit Begay from discussing his health, because the United States does not sufficiently explain its request; and (x) at this time, the Court will not prohibit Begay from discussing topics about which only he knows, because the United States does not sufficiently explain its request.
In a criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152 or 1153, the Court determines its jurisdiction based on facts established by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Bustillos, 31 F.3d 931, 933 (10th Cir. 1994) (citing McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936) ). The United States charges Begay with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153. See Indictment at 1, filed March 21, 2014 (Doc. 2)("Indictment"). The following facts, which the Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence,2 are relevant to the Court's jurisdictional determination:
1. Navajo (town site) community in Navajo, County of McKinley, State of New Mexico, is in Land Management District 18 of the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. See Letter at 1.
2. The United States of America holds title to Land Management District 18 in trust for the Navajo Tribe of Indians. See Letter at 1.
3. The geographic coordinates of N 35° 54.233’, W 109° 02.368, are in Land Management District 18. See Letter at 1.
On March 11, 2014, a Grand Jury indicted Begay on four counts of sexual misconduct against minors in Navajo Nation. See Indictment at 1-3, filed March 11, 2014 (Doc. 2)("Indictment"). Counts 1, 2, and 3 allege that, in February, 2004, Begay allegedly "did knowingly engage in and attempt to engage in a sexual act with JANE DOE 1, a child who had not attained the age of 12 years." Indictment at 1-3. The alleged sexual act included both "penetration" and "intentional touching." Indictment at 1-2. Count 2 alleges that, between 2004 and 2011, Begay "knowingly engaged in and caused sexual contact with and by Jane Doe 2, a child who had not attained the age of 12 years." Indictment at 2. The Indictment further alleges that Begay is an Indian and that the alleged event occurred in Indian Country. See Indictment at 1. Begay has been in custody awaiting trial since March 12, 2014, when he was arrested. See Arrest Warrant at 1, filed March 18, 2014 (Doc. 10). By the Court's count, Begay has filed over forty continuance motions. See 2014-CR-00747-JB court docket.
This case has already seen extensive litigation on a number of issues, and the Court has issued three memorandum opinions addressing a range of pretrial issues. See United States v. Begay, 310 F. Supp. 3d 1318 (D.N.M. 2018) (Browning, J.)(" Feb. 23 MOO")(denying motion to suppress and granting the United States’ motion to exclude Begay's proposed expert witness); United States v. Begay, No. CR 14-0747, 2018 WL 401265 (D.N.M. Jan. 12, 2018) (Browning, J.)(resolving discovery dispute as to the alleged victim's school records); United States v. Begay, No. CR 14-0747, 2017 WL 4737250 (D.N.M. Oct. 19, 2017) (Browning, J.)(denying Begay's request to compel disclosure of certain witness statements). In January and August of 2019, the United States filed a series of motions in limine to address evidentiary disputes that could potentially arise at trial.
In the First MIL, the United States requests that the Court rule on eight potential discovery disputes. See First MIL at 1. First, the United States requests that the Court "preclude Defendant and his counsel from, while the jury is present, introducing any evidence, making any statement, or asking any questions regarding allegations of government misconduct or constitutional violations." First MIL at 1. The United States does not elaborate any alleged misconduct, but asserts that evidence or argument regarding alleged prosecutorial or investigative misconduct would be unfairly prejudicial and could confuse the jury. See First MIL at 1. Second, the United States requests, for similar reasons, that the Court preclude allusion to any of the Court's pretrial rulings in this case. See First MIL at 2. The United States does not assert why the Court should make such a ruling, but cites to rules 401, 402, and 403. See First MIL at 2. Third, the United States asks that the Court prohibit Begay from alluding or referring to any plea discussion or negotiations. See First MIL at 2 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 401 - 403, 410 ). Fourth, the United States requests that the Court preclude Begay from any making any comment or introducing any evidence "regarding Defendant volunteering, offering, or in any manner agreeing to stipulate to certain facts unless some agreement between all parties with approval of the Court has been arranged concerning a stipulation." First MIL at 2 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 401 - 403 ; United States v. Schene, 543 F.3d 627, 643 (10th Cir. 2008) ). Fifth, the United States...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Powell
...conclusion that social sciences methodologies lack an error rate might be relevant under Daubert (see e.g. United States v. Begay , 497 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1076-1077 [D.N.M. 2020] [finding, under Daubert standard, that false confession research has an "unacceptably high rate of error"]), but ......
-
People v. Powell
...conclusion that social sciences methodologies lack an error rate might be relevant under Daubert (see e.g. United States v. Begay , 497 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1076-1077 [D.N.M. 2020] [finding, under Daubert standard, that false confession research has an "unacceptably high rate of error"]), but ......
-
Ortiz v. United States
... ... v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 ... (2012)(“ Frye ”). The ... Lafler - Frye hearing's purpose is to ... determine whether a defendant's counsel informed ... adequately the defendant of a plea offer. See, e.g., ... United States v. Begay, 497 F.Supp.3d 1025, 1083-84 ... (D.N.M. 2020)(Browning, J.). In Lafler, the Supreme ... Court held that, “[i]f a plea bargain has been offered, ... a defendant has the right to effective assistance of counsel ... in considering whether to accept it.” Lafler, ... ...
-
People v. Powell
...conclusion that social sciences methodologies lack an error rate might be relevant under Daubert (see e.g. United States v Begay, 497 F.Supp.3d 1025, 1076-1077 [D NM 2020] [finding, under Daubert standard, that false confession research has an "unacceptably high rate of error"]), but not un......
-
Privilege and work product
...by lawyer to client privileged where they reflect or would reveal client’s confidential communications); United States v. Begay, 497 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1084 (D.N.M. 2020) (factual questions related to whether counsel communicated plea offer did not seek substance of communications and thus d......