United States v. Williams
Decision Date | 25 March 2014 |
Docket Number | Crim. No. 06–00079 JMS–KSC. |
Citation | 8 F.Supp.3d 1219 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Naeem J. WILLIAMS, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
Darren W.K. Ching, Office of the United States Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff.
Barry D. Edwards, Kaneohe, HI, John Timothy Philipsborn, Michael N. Burt, Law Office of Michael Burt, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant.
In this capital murder case, Defendant Naeem Williams filed a Trial Memorandum on March 18, 2014, objecting to certain testimony of Dr. Sharon Cooper and Dr. Kanthi De Alwis, who are proposed government expert witnesses. Doc. No. 2452.1 Defendant's Trial Memorandum, however, does more than challenge expert testimony—it raises a more fundamental issue, challenging the sufficiency of Count One of the Second Superceding Indictment (the “Indictment”). The court denied that legal challenge in open court on March 20, 2014. This Order explains the court's reasons for rejecting Defendant's argument, and for upholding the sufficiency of the Indictment.
Among other Counts, the Indictment charges Defendant with two capital-eligible Counts of felony murder arising out of Defendant's role in allegedly killing his five-year-old daughter. Specifically, Count One charges Defendant with first degree felony murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 7 & 1111, as follows:
Doc. No. 1004, Indictment at 2. Count Two charges Defendant with first degree felony murder, and aiding and abetting first degree felony murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 7 & 1111, as follows:
Thus, the Indictment charges two violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1111, which provides, in relevant part:
In turn, 18 U.S.C. § 1365(h) provides in relevant part:
And 18 U.S.C. § 2340 provides:
Applying the statutory terms, Defendant reads § 1111(c)(3) to mean there are two distinct types of “child abuse”—the first type is “intentionally or knowingly causing death,” and the second type is “intentionally or knowingly causing serious bodily injury.” So construed, Defendant contends that the Indictment charges only the first type (intentionally or knowingly causing death). Thus, Defendant argues that the government—having indicted Defendant on the first type—cannot now pursue the second type of child abuse (serious bodily injury).
Defendant further argues that allowing the government to pursue this second type of child abuse (serious bodily injury) would amount to an unconstitutional constructive amendment of the Indictment. See Doc. No. 2452, Trial Brief at 7 ( ).3
And because (according to Defendant) the Indictment does not charge “serious bodily injury” child abuse in Count One, Defendant concludes that expert testimony from Dr. Cooper on “extreme physical pain” (as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 1365(h)(3)(B)'s definition of “serious bodily injury”) is irrelevant and should be excluded.4
Initially, Count One of the Indictment does not limit the government only to the first type of child abuse (“intentionally or knowingly causing death”). Rather, Count One alleges felony murder based on a violation of “sections 7(3) and 1111(a) & (b),” where § 1111(a) includes “child abuse” as one of many specific felonies constituting possible predicates.5 Count One then describes the elements “child” and “child abuse” by incorporating the meanings set forth in the next part of the felony murder statute—“as those terms are defined by Title 18 United States Code, Section 1111(c).” And because § 1111(c)(3) describes two types of “child abuse,” the indictment charges both theories. That is, § 1111(c)(3) describes two theories of “child abuse” as alternate ways of proving the same crime. It does not define two distinct crimes.
In support of the notion that the language of the Indictment specifically charges only one of the theories of child abuse, Defendant points out that Count One alleges that Defendant “did unlawfully kill Talia Williams ... in the perpetration of ‘child abuse[.]’ ” Doc. No. 1004, Indictment at 2. Defendant believes that this language (“unlawfully kill”) means the Indictment is based only on the first theory of child abuse (“intentionally or knowingly causing death”). See Doc. No. 2452, Trial Memo, at 7 () .
But Defendant fails to recognize the obvious—an “unlawful killing of a human being” is a necessary element of every felony murder under § 1111(a) ( ). Alleging an “unlawful killing” is not an allegation of a specific type of child abuse, but is an allegation of an otherwise necessary element of felony murder under § 1111(a).
Moreover, there is no requirement that an indictment specifically choose among two alternative theories of a single crime. “An indictment must provide the essential facts necessary to apprise a defendant of the crime charged; it need not specify the theories or evidence upon which the government will rely to prove those facts. ” United States v. Cochrane, 985 F.2d 1027, 1031 (9th Cir.1993) (citing United States v. Jenkins, 884 F.2d 433, 438–39 (9th Cir.1989) (emphasis added)). An indictment is proper if it (1) “contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend,” and (2) “enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.” Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974) ; see also United States v. Woodruff, 50 F.3d 673, 676 (9th Cir....
To continue reading
Request your trial