United States v. Woody

• Decision Date: 16 June 2020
• Docket Number: No. CR 18-3902 JB,CR 18-3902 JB
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. FRANCIS WOODY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. FRANCIS WOODY, Defendant.

No. CR 18-3902 JB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

June 16, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the United States' Motion in Limine To Prohibit Discussion of Sentencing or Punishment at Trial, filed May 14, 2019 (Doc. 40)("Sentencing MIL"); (ii) the United States' Motion for a Lafler-Frye Hearing, filed May 14, 2019 (Doc. 41)("Lafler-Frye Motion"); (iii) the United States' Motion in Limine to Permit Statements Made for Medical Diagnosis and Treatment, filed May 14, 2019 (Doc. 42)("Medical MIL"); (iv) the United States' Sealed Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence Pursuant to Rules 413, 414 and 404(b), filed May 14, 2019 (Doc. 43)("Past Conduct MIL"); (v) the United States' Sealed Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of the Victims' Sexual Behavior and Predisposition, filed May 16, 2019 (Doc. 48)("Victim MIL"); (vi) the United States' Motion in Limine to Exclude Irrelevant, Prejudicial, Self-Serving and/or Hearsay Statements and Notice of Intent to Offer Defendant's Self-Inculpatory Statements in Evidence, filed May 20, 2019 (Doc. 49)("Interview MIL"); (vii) the Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Allow the United States to Use Transcripts as Demonstrative Aids, filed May 20, 2019 (Doc. 50)("Demonstrative MIL"); (viii) the Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Admission of Hearsay Testimony of Jane Doe 1's Father, Step-Mother, and Sister, filed May 20, 2019 (Doc. 56)("Hearsay MIL"); (ix) the Defendant's Motion in Limine Regarding Irrelevance and Speculation by FBI Agents Regarding Defendant Woody Looking Like He Has a Lot on His Shoulders, filed May 20, 2019 (Doc. 57)("FBI MIL"); and (x) the Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Admission of Testimony About Property Damage and Trespassing in October of 2016 or 2017, filed May 20, 2019 (Doc. 58)("Trespassing MIL"). The Court held a hearing on July 26, 2019. See Clerk's Minutes at 1, filed July 26, 2019 (Doc. 104). The primary issues are whether: (i) to permit Defendant Francis Woody to inform the jury about the consequences he faces as a result of its verdict; (ii) the Court should hold a hearing pursuant to Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012), and Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012)("Lafler-Frye hearing"), to determine whether Woody's counsel has effectively communicated the Plaintiff United States' plea offer to Woody; (iii) to admit statements Jane Doe 1's father made to her doctor under rule 803(4) of the Federal Rules of Evidence; (iv) to admit evidence of Woody's past sexual abuse of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2; (v) to bar evidence concerning Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's sexual conduct; (vi) Woody may introduce self-exculpatory statements from his Federal Bureau of Investigation interviews without taking the witness stand; (vii) the United States may use a transcript of Woody's FBI interviews as a demonstrative aid; (viii) the United States may present testimony from Jane Doe 1's family regarding what she told them about her sexual abuse; (ix) the FBI agents who interviewed Woody may testify that he "looked like he had a lot on his shoulders"; and (x) the United States may introduce evidence concerning an incident in which Jane Doe 1's father destroyed property at Woody's residence. The Court concludes that: (i) it will not permit Woody to introduce information regarding the punitive consequence he faces if the jury finds him guilty; (ii) it will hold a Lafler-Frye hearing to determine whether Woody was adequately informed of the United States' plea offers; (iii) it will not admit Jane Doe 1's father's statements to her doctor under rule803(4), but it will admit her statements; (iv) it will admit evidence of Woody's past sexual abuse of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2; (v) evidence of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's sexual history is inadmissible; (vi) Woody may not admit his own exculpatory statements without facing cross-examination; (vii) the United States may use a transcript as a demonstrative aid; (viii) hearsay rules bar Jane Doe 1's family's testimony about her words, but her family members may testify to how they reacted to her statements; (ix) the United States may not present evidence that Woody "looked like he had a lot on his shoulders" when FBI agents interview him; and (x) the United States may not provide evidence concerning Jane Doe 1's father's trespassing incident unless Woody opens the door to this evidence.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On October 29, 2016, eight-year-old Jane Doe 1 told her father and step-mother that Woody had been sexually abusing her. See Medical MIL at 1; Past Conduct MIL at 1; Hearsay MIL at 1-2. Jane Doe 1's sister may have also overheard Jane Doe 1's statements. See Hearsay MIL at 2. Jane Doe 1's father then took her to Presbyterian Hospital in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, where Dr. Stephen Pilon examined her. See Medical MIL at 1. Jane Doe 1, her father, and her stepmother made statements to Dr. Pilon regarding this abuse. See Medical MIL at 1. Dr. Pilon reported Jane Doe 1's sexual abuse to the Navajo Nation Division of Social Services, which referred the case to the Crownpoint, New Mexico Police Department. See Past Conduct MIL at 1-2. On March 1, 2017, the Navajo Nation Division of Social Services referred Jane Doe 1's case to the FBI. See Past Conduct MIL at 2. On April 14, 2017, Jane Doe 1 was forensically interviewed regarding her allegations. See Past Conduct MIL at 2.

On April 25, 2018, FBI agents Ross Zuercher and Thaddeus Clancy interviewed Woody. See Interview MIL at 2. During the interview, Woody admitted that he slightly penetrated Jane Doe 1's vagina with his left middle finger. See Interview MIL at 2. He also made exculpatory statements. See Interview MIL at 2. While investigating further, FBI agents learned of another victim. See Interview MIL at 2. FBI agents interviewed 25-year-old Jane Doe 2 on May 4, 2018. See Past Conduct MIL at 3. Jane Doe 2 discussed numerous instances of abuse. See Past Conduct MIL at 3-5.

FBI agents interviewed Woody again on October 23, 2018. See Interview MIL at 2. During this interview, Woody admitted that he sexually abused Jane Doe 2 while married to Jane Doe 2's mother. See Interview MIL at 2. At the end of the interview, Woody wrote an apology letter to Jane Doe 2. See Interview MIL at 6.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 28, 2018, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against Woody, charging him with one count of aggravated sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2241(c), and 2246(2)(C), and one count of abusive sexual contact in violation of §§ 1153, 2244(a)(5), and 2246(3). See Redacted Indictment at 1-2, filed November 28, 2018 (Doc. 2). Woody was arrested on December 6, 2018. See Arrest Warrant Returned Executed, filed December 7, 2018 (Doc. 9). Woody pled not guilty at his arraignment. See Clerk's Minutes at 1, filed December 11, 2018 (Doc. 13). The Court scheduled a jury trial on Woody's charges from August 22, 2019, to August 26, 2019. See Notice of Hearing as to Francis Woody, filed August 12, 2019 (Doc. 110)(text-only entry). If convicted of aggravated sexual abuse, Woody faces between thirty years and life in prison. See 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c).

1. The Sentencing MIL.

The United States' Sentencing MIL requests that the Court exclude evidence related to Woody's potential guideline sentencing range, the thirty-year mandatory minimum sentence which he faces, and the requirement to register as a sex offender upon conviction. See Sentencing MIL at 1. The United States argues that, according to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, "'[u]nless a statute specifically requires jury participation in determining punishment, the jury shall not be informed of the possible penalties.'" Sentencing MIL at 2 (quoting United States v. Parrish, 925 F.2d 1293, 1299 (10th Cir. 1991)). It argues that a contrary rule invites jury nullification and that other Courts of Appeals have ruled similarly. See Sentencing MIL at 2-3 (citing United States v. Johnson, 62 F.3d 849, 850-51 (6th Cir. 1995)). The United States also argued that admitting this evidence would contradict standard jury instructions. See Sentencing MIL at 3-4 (citing Tenth Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction § 1.04).

2. The Lafler-Frye Motion.

The United States' Lafler-Frye Motion requests that the Court inquire whether Woody's defense counsel has communicated to Woody the United States' plea offer. See Lafler-Frye Motion at 1. It states that, under Missouri v. Frye and Lafler v. Cooper, defendants have the right to effective assistance of counsel during pre-trial plea negotiations. See Lafler-Frye Motion at 1. The United States provides sample language for the Court to use in this inquiry. See Lafler-Frye Motion at 2:

I am informed that the government made you a plea offer that you rejected.

Do not tell me about the content of any discussion between you and your counsel. Do not tell me the terms of any plea offer made by the government. This Court is not involved in any plea negotiations, and states no opinion regarding yourdecision to plead guilty or proceed to trial. I simply request a yes or no answer to the following questions:

First, did you discuss with your attorney the plea offer made by the government?

Second, are you satisfied that, prior to rejecting the plea offer, you had a full and complete opportunity to discuss the plea offer with your attorney?

Lafler-Frye Motion at 2.

3. The Medical MIL.

The United States' Medical MIL asks that the Court conclude that Jane Doe 1's statements which she made during the course of her medical treatment, are admissible under rule 803(4). See Medical MIL at 1. The United States argues that courts admit evidence under similar circumstances, because "this information is needed to treat the child victim's emotional and psychological injuries, including preventing 'an abused child from being returned to an environment in which he or she...