Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02388/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02388-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cody Cheyenne Medearis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1The Honorable Clyde H. Hamilton, United States Circuit Judge for the United

States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

No. 03-2388

*

United States of America, * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

 Plaintiff - Appellee, * District of South Dakota

* 

v. *

*

Cody Cheyenne Medearis, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

*

Submitted: May 14, 2004 

 Filed: September 2, 2004 

Before WOLLMAN, HAMILTON1

, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.

Cody Cheyenne Medearis (Medearis) appeals his two convictions for

aggravated sexual abuse in Indian Country, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2241(a), and 2246(2).

We affirm.

Appellate Case: 03-2388 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806666 
2The problems between the couple started when Medearis began having

relations with other women.

3Whiting has two children, one of which, Connor, was borne out of her

relationship with Medearis.

- 2 -

I

A

In considering Medearis’ challenge to his aggravated sexual abuse in Indian

Country convictions, we recite the facts in the light most favorable to the government,

as it prevailed on these counts below. United States v. Reyes, 362 F.3d 536, 539 (8th

Cir. 2004) (“[W]e recite and evaluate the facts in the light most favorable to the

government because it prevailed at trial.”).

In April 1998, Medearis met Sherri Whiting (Whiting) on the Rosebud

Reservation in South Dakota. Shortly thereafter, Medearis moved with Whiting to

her mother’s residence in Florida. In October 1998, Whiting and Medearis left

Florida and returned to the Rosebud Reservation, settling in the house of Cheryl

Medearis, Medearis’ mother.

In the next three plus years, the couple had a tumultuous relationship,

separating on several occasions, with the final break occurring on January 3, 2002.2

On that day, Whiting went, with her children,3 to her aunt’s house, which is located

on the Rosebud Reservation, near Mission, South Dakota. In the days that followed,

Medearis stopped by a few times to see her, but Whiting did not leave to go anywhere

with Medearis.

On Friday, January 11, 2002, Medearis and Whiting agreed to see each other

about 7:30 p.m. to talk about their relationship. For some reason not entirely clear

Appellate Case: 03-2388 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806666 
4Medearis was on a date with another woman that night, Rikki Siers (Siers).

- 3 -

from the record, Medearis and Whiting did not meet, and Whiting’s efforts to find

Medearis that evening were unsuccessful.4

The following day, at around 8:00 or 9:00 p.m., Whiting saw Medearis while

she was driving around Mission. The two talked briefly, but an argument quickly

ensued. The argument apparently ended when the two agreed to meet that night at

a mutual friend’s house at about 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. to talk about their relationship.

Medearis never appeared at the mutual friend’s house, so Whiting went to the

apartment of her cousin, Fred Whiting, where she had earlier planned to spend the

night, arriving there at 1:00 or 1:30 a.m. the next morning (January 13, 2002). 

At 2:00 or 2:30 a.m., Whiting heard Medearis arrive in his car in the parking

lot in front of Fred Whiting’s apartment, as she was familiar with the car’s distinctive

sound. Medearis did not go to Fred Whiting’s apartment; instead, he stayed in the

car, revving its motor.

Because Medearis and Fred Whiting had previous altercations, Whiting went

outside to talk to Medearis. As Whiting approached the driver’s side door, Medearis

asked her to get inside so they could talk. Because Medearis had been drinking, as

evinced by his slurred speech and red eyes, Whiting refused and headed back to Fred

Whiting’s apartment. 

In response, Medearis got out of the car and ran up behind Whiting, swinging,

like he was going to hit her. At that time, Whiting saw a hickey on Medearis’ neck.

When Whiting asked Medearis if he would let her go into Fred Whiting’s apartment

to get her coat and shoes, Medearis allowed her to do so. After Whiting entered the

apartment, Medearis returned to his car. 

Appellate Case: 03-2388 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806666 
5These screams were not only heard by Fred Whiting but also by a neighbor of

Fred Whiting’s, Donald Bear Robe.

6Donald Bear Robe did not call the police because he believed what transpired

was a “common fight going on amongst couples.”

- 4 -

Because Whiting wanted to get Medearis to leave without getting Fred Whiting

or anyone else involved, Whiting went outside to talk to Medearis. Whiting

approached the driver’s side of the car to talk. The talking turned to arguing, and

when it began to snow and drizzle, Whiting entered the car through the passenger

side, keeping the door open a crack.

Almost immediately, Medearis started calling Whiting a “slut” and a “bitch.”

In response, Whiting asked Medearis, rhetorically, why he was coming to see her to

work things out when he had a hickey on his neck from somebody else. Medearis

denied he had a hickey and Whiting, at this point, told Medearis that she did not want

to argue when he had been drinking and suggested that they talk another time. In

response, Medearis asked Whiting to continue the conversation, but instructed her to

get out of the car.

When Whiting tried to get out of the car, Medearis grabbed her by the back of

her hair and yanked her back into the car. Whiting started to scream for Fred

Whiting.5

 Medearis shut the passenger door, slamming Whiting’s leg in the door. As

Medearis pulled the car out of the parking lot, Whiting tried to jump out, but

Medearis grabbed her again, this time putting her in a “headlock” on his lap. Whiting

then bit Medearis on the thumb, which allowed her to lunge for the door again.

However, Medearis sped away, which prevented Whiting from leaving the car.6

Medearis stopped the car on Hidden Timber Road, where the two had a chance

to talk, with Medearis indicating he wanted to reconcile and Whiting commenting

that she did not because she “couldn’t handle the fighting anymore.” At one point,

Appellate Case: 03-2388 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806666 
- 5 -

Medearis unloaded his gun, telling Whiting, “don’t worry, I’m not going to shoot

you.”

As the two talked, a truck went by, turned around, and slowly approached

Medearis’ car. Medearis jumped out of the car to speak to the truck driver, who

apparently was known to Medearis.

Medearis returned to the car and told Whiting to take the car. Medearis then

got out of the car. After he punched a passenger-side window, he reentered the car,

telling Whiting to “get the f*** out of here.” Medearis opened the passenger door

and pushed Whiting out.

As Whiting walked behind the car, Medearis backed the car up. Medearis then

slammed on the brakes, got out of the car, and demanded that Whiting get her

“f***ing ass in the car” or he was going to “beat the f*** out of” her. When Whiting

started backing away from him, Medearis ran toward her and pushed her onto the

highway, telling her to “get the f*** out of here, run.” Whiting started to run away,

but Medearis caught her and pushed her into a ditch. When Whiting tried to get up,

Medearis grabbed her by her jacket, lifted her off the ground, and told her to get in

the car, pushing her back across the highway. Medearis opened the passenger door

and “put” Whiting back in the car. Once in the car, Medearis blamed Whiting,

saying, “see what you made me do?” 

Whiting pleaded with Medearis to take her back to her van, which was located

at Fred Whiting’s apartment. Medearis angrily accused Whiting of being with other

men and demanded to know who they were. Medearis told Whiting that he might as

well rape her, “do” her one last time, and that he should just “butt f***” her. As

Whiting pleaded for him not to do that, Medearis reached over and threw her seat

back. 

Appellate Case: 03-2388 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806666 
- 6 -

Medearis then started to drive toward his mother’s house. On the way, Whiting

indicated that she did not want to go there because her kids were there. Nevertheless,

Medearis continued toward his mother’s house, stopping the car near the driveway

to the house. At that point, Medearis threatened Whiting that he would run her over

if she got out of the car. Medearis then switched gears somewhat, telling Whiting

that if she could “make it through that ditch, across that fence, before [he got] to [her]

then [she would] be all right.” When Whiting opened the door to get out and make

a run for it, Medearis slammed the car into reverse, backing the car up while at the

same time taunting Whiting to “jump” out of the car. Medearis then stopped the car

and told Whiting he was going to rape her. Thereafter, he starting driving the car

again, telling Whiting at this time to remove her pants.

Medearis stopped the car on a trail, just off of Wood Road. Medearis then

started to pull Whiting’s pants down. He locked all of the car doors, crawled over to

the passenger seat, unfastened his own pants, and got behind Whiting. Whiting

continued to plead for him to stop, but Medearis responded by saying, “all I want to

do is to make love to you.”

Medearis pulled Whiting’s jacket off over her head and sucked her breasts,

while Whiting screamed “no.” Medearis then got on top of Whiting, spread her legs,

forcing one of her legs up. Medearis performed oral sex on Whiting, while she tried

to push him away. Medearis came back up, forced Whiting’s hands behind her head,

and then drove his penis into Whiting’s vagina, saying he “always wanted to do this.”

Medearis then removed his penis from her vagina and inserted his fingers inside of

her vagina, while Whiting continued to scream. After removing his fingers, Medearis

inserted his penis again and quickly pulled it out, commenting that he could not

“f***” her. Medearis then smeared his fingers across Whiting’s face, sneering, “[t]his

is how you f***ing smell.” Medearis returned to the driver’s seat and told Whiting

to “get the f*** out.” Whiting then exited the car and walked to Medearis’ mother’s

house. Once there, Cheryl Medearis’ boyfriend took Whiting to her aunt’s house.

Appellate Case: 03-2388 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806666 
7Part of the zipper was discovered in Medearis’ car following the incident in

question.

8At the hospital, Whiting gave three detailed and thorough accounts of the

incident, one to the hospital staff, one to Sergeant Esther Murray, and one to a

criminal investigator, Grace Her Many Horses.

- 7 -

Upon her arrival at her aunt’s house, Whiting was crying and her hair was “all messed

up.” Whiting was cold, and when her aunt tried to zip up her coat, there was no

zipper.7

Whiting’s aunt took Whiting to the Indian Health Service Hospital in Rosebud,

where she was seen by Dr. Zijad Sabovic (Dr. Sabovic) at 6:10 a.m. During his

examination, Dr. Sabovic observed that Whiting had fresh bruises on both of her

knees, on her left elbow, and on her left shoulder. In addition to observing redness

on Whiting’s left thigh, Dr. Sabovic also observed an excoriation of the vaginal

vault. At trial, Dr. Sabovic opined that Whiting’s injuries were consistent with forced

sexual intercourse. 

At the hospital, a rape kit was administered, which included both an oral and

vaginal swab of Whiting. Medearis was found to be the source of the DNA

discovered on the vaginal swab. Moreover, as part of the preparation of the rape kit,

Whiting was asked to remove her clothing while standing on a white piece of paper

so that Dr. Sabovic could collect her clothing, including her panties, and any foreign

material dislodged from her clothing during this process. After Whiting removed her

clothing, Dr. Sabovic recovered gravel and sand, which he opined came from either

Whiting’s panties, her other clothing, or her feet.8

B

In March 2002, Medearis was charged, as an Indian, with one count of

kidnapping (Count One) in Indian Country, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 1201, and two

Appellate Case: 03-2388 Page: 7 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806666 
9Native American tribes generally have exclusive jurisdiction over crimes

committed by Indians against Indians in Indian Country. However, two federal

statutes provide for federal jurisdiction over such crimes. The first statute, 18 U.S.C.

§ 1152, known as the “General Crimes Act” (GCA), mandates that the “general laws”

of the United States, which are applicable in federal enclaves such as military bases,

apply in Indian Country. However, there are two important limitations on the scope

of the GCA: it does not extend to offenses committed by an Indian against another

Indian or any Indian who has been punished for that act by the local law of the tribe.

The second statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1153, known as the “Major Crimes Act,” partially

abrogated the GCA by creating federal jurisdiction over fourteen enumerated crimes

committed by Indians against Indians or any other person in Indian Country,

including kidnapping and felonies listed in the Sexual Abuse Chapter (109A) of Title

18.

10Around this time, Medearis was using marijuana and methamphetamine. He

testified that he began using drugs after he met Whiting.

- 8 -

counts of aggravated sexual abuse in Indian Country (Counts Three and Five), 18

U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2241(a), and 2246(2), by a federal grand jury sitting in the District

of South Dakota. In alternative counts, Medearis was charged, as a non-Indian, with

kidnapping (Count Two) in Indian Country, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152 and 1201, and two

counts of aggravated sexual abuse in Indian Country (Counts Four and Six), 18

U.S.C. §§ 1152, 2241(a), and 2246(2). Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties,

Medearis acknowledged that he was an Indian person and, as a result, Counts Two,

Four, and Six were dismissed.9

Following a bond hearing, Medearis was released on certain conditions,

including that he submit to and pass urine analyses and that he attend all hearings

related to this matter. After failing two urine tests and failing to attend a hearing,

Medearis fled, but later surrendered on his own volition in August 2002, after several

months on the run.10

Appellate Case: 03-2388 Page: 8 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806666 
11Siers resided at Fred Whiting’s apartment from October 2001 until January

2002. On January 10 and 11, 2002, she went out on dates with Medearis and had sex

with him on both occasions in his car. According to Siers, having sex in such close

quarters caused her to bruise. Siers testified that she saw Whiting enter Medearis’ car

while it was stopped outside Fred Whiting’s apartment on January 13, 2002. At that

time, she heard no screams.

12Medearis also testified that on another occasion Siers broke her zipper in his

car.

- 9 -

At trial, Whiting testified to the events described above. Her credibility was

painstakingly and exhaustively attacked by Medearis’ counsel on cross-examination.

Counsel for Medearis was able to demonstrate that Whiting gave inconsistent

statements over time. Counsel was also able to establish that Whiting generally

feared losing Medearis and he was able to explore any ill motives Whiting may have

had concerning her desire to seek revenge against Medearis for his having relations

with other women. 

For his part, Medearis testified that, after he arrived at Fred Whiting’s

apartment, Whiting willingly got into his car. Medearis testified that they drove for

a while and then stopped just off of Wood Road. According to Medearis, after

consensual sex, Whiting noticed a hickey on his neck that Siers had given him.11

Whiting then became irate and threatened that he would never see his son again. He

then drove to his mother’s house. Before she got out of the car, Whiting broke the

zipper on her coat, trying to zip the zipper.12 Medearis testified that Whiting got out

of the car and fell, landing on her knees. She then got up and walked toward Cheryl

Medearis’ house. At that point, Medearis decided to leave. He was later interviewed

by Grace Her Many Horses. During the interview, Medearis asked Grace Her Many

Horses if Whiting was “all right.” As to Whiting’s injuries, Medearis testified that

at least some of them were caused by having sex in a small car.

Appellate Case: 03-2388 Page: 9 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806666 
13Cheryl Medearis testified that, on the morning of January 13, 2002, Whiting’s

hair was “pretty” and that she “appeared fine.” Cheryl Medearis did acknowledge

- 10 -

In his closing argument, the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) argued

that the evidence supported guilty verdicts, based primarily on Whiting’s testimony,

as supported by the government’s other witnesses (mainly Dr. Sabovic), and the

physical evidence. The AUSA also pointed out that Medearis’ flight was consistent

with guilt as opposed to innocence.

In his closing argument to the jury, counsel for Medearis explained to the jury

that this case involved false accusations fueled by either jealousy, anger, or revenge.

In making this argument, he continuously attacked Whiting’s credibility as a witness.

For example, Whiting testified on direct examination that, at one point when

Medearis’ car was parked on Hidden Timber Road, Medearis got out and punched the

passenger window. Counsel pointed out that this testimony was inconsistent with her

statement to Grace Her Many Horses on the morning of the rape that a driver-side

window was punched. Counsel also pointed out that, while Whiting testified on

direct examination that she was pushed out of the car while it was parked on Hidden

Timber Road and then thrown into a ditch, she told Cheryl Medearis that she was

dragged out of the car by her hair and then thrown into the ditch. Counsel pointed out

that, while Whiting testified on direct examination that she was scared that Medearis

was going to run her over, in an earlier statement to the FBI, she said that Medearis

had tried to run her over. Whiting also testified on direct examination that the driver

of the truck stopped by before they initially went near Cheryl Medearis’ house;

however, counsel pointed out that, when she talked to Grace Her Many Horses,

Whiting indicated that the truck driver stopped by right before she claimed she was

raped. Counsel also told the jury that, while Whiting claimed she never threatened

Medearis with the loss of his son, Cheryl Medearis testified that Whiting told her on

the morning of January 13, 2002 that Medearis “was never going to see his son

again,” that he “was going to pay,” and that she was going to put him “in jail.”13

Appellate Case: 03-2388 Page: 10 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806666 
that she had earlier testified before the grand jury that Whiting was “emotionally

upset” and “crying” that morning. Cheryl Medearis’ boyfriend gave similar

testimony. He testified at trial that Whiting’s clothing and hair appeared “neat,” but

he, too, acknowledged that he testified before the grand jury that Whiting was

“crying” on the morning of the incident in question.

- 11 -

Counsel also pointed out that Whiting gave inconsistent accounts concerning her

pants. On direct examination, Whiting testified that Medearis only took one of her

pants legs off; yet, in some earlier statements to law enforcement, she said her pants

were taken off completely. Counsel also established that Whiting gave differing

accounts on whether she was hit on the night in question. 

Counsel for Medearis also made several points concerning the physical

evidence. He noted that Whiting claimed she had bitten Medearis’ thumb, but that

Grace Her Many Horses indicated in her report that she saw nothing after she

examined Medearis’ thumb. Counsel also pointed out that Whiting had no scrapes

or bruises on her hands even though she testified that, while she was running,

Medearis came up behind her at a run and pushed her down. Counsel also argued

that, although Whiting claimed that she was thrown down in the ditch and flipped

over onto her back, she had no mud or grass stains on her jacket.

Counsel for Medearis also made some additional points suggesting that the

evidence in the record was inconsistent with rape. First, he posited that, if Whiting

feared she was going to be raped, she would have locked the doors and driven off in

the car after Medearis exited the car while it was parked on Hidden Timber Road.

Moreover, counsel pointed out that Whiting made no effort to alert the truck driver

who stopped and spoke to Medearis. Counsel also pointed out that the emergency

room nurse indicated in the hospital report that Whiting stated that Medearis was

“being nice when taking my clothes off.” Counsel also pointed out that Whiting did

not want to go to the police or the hospital right away; instead she asked Cheryl

Medearis’ boyfriend to drive her to her aunt’s house. Finally, counsel pointed out

Appellate Case: 03-2388 Page: 11 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806666 
14The letter reads as follows:

Cody, hi baby!

I just wanted to write a few lines to let you know that I do really love you a lot

- 12 -

that Whiting went to Medearis’ motel room to wait for him a couple of weeks after

the incident in question.

In his rebuttal, the AUSA argued that Whiting was a more credible witness

than Medearis, who fled prior to trial. He also reemphasized that Whiting’s testimony

was consistent with Dr. Sabovic’s testimony and the physical evidence.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury convicted Medearis of the two remaining

aggravated sexual abuse counts, but acquitted him of the remaining kidnapping count.

The district court sentenced Medearis to 108 months’ imprisonment, and Medearis

noted a timely appeal.

II

Medearis’ principal argument on appeal is that the district court erred when it

refused to allow his counsel to use a letter allegedly written by Whiting to impeach

her testimony at trial. In making this argument, Medearis goes on to posit that the

district court’s refusal to allow his counsel to use the letter for impeachment purposes

was not harmless error.

A district court’s evidentiary rulings are reviewed by this court under the abuse

of discretion standard. United States v. Buffalo, 358 F.3d 519, 521 (8th Cir. 2004).

During Whiting’s cross-examination, counsel for Medearis began to explore

Whiting’s fear of losing Medearis. He asked Whiting if “at some point” she “wrote

him a letter” about her fear of losing him.14 The AUSA objected to counsel for

Appellate Case: 03-2388 Page: 12 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806666 
and I don’t want to loose [sic] you, even though I do know that if I do ever loose [sic]

you it’ll be my fault because of the way I act sometimes but I can honestly say that

I would rather loose [sic] you because of the problems I have dealing with the way

I am than loosing [sic] you to another girl. That’s what I guess I fear the most. I hate

the fact that I feel the way I do. I just don’t want to have the first feeling of a chance

of loosing [sic] you, that probaly [sic] sounds crazy but that’s the only way I could

explain it. 

I just love you so much Cody. I haven’t felt this strong about anybody in a

long time. I can talk to you about anything even though sometimes I’m scared to. I

feel so comfortable with you and I can be myself. 

I know I can act so negative about things, I’m sorry, I shouldn’t ever do that

because I know deep down that I Love you and want to be with only you and I do

believe that you love me and want to be with only me because of the [sic] how much

you tell me. 

I’m so sorry I doubt you so much and I hope you’ll give me a chance. I don’t

know why I feel so ensecure [sic]. It seems like the only time I have been this way’s

[sic] when I’m with someone but when I’m single there’s no such thing. Weird heh

[sic]?

Well I’ve probaly [sic] bored you enuff [sic]. Just wanted you to know that I

do love you and I don’t ever want to loose [sic] you. I want us to have a life together

and I promise I’m going to deal with my ensecure [sic] problem because the last thing

I want to do is loose [sic] you Cody. 

This whole letter is pretty stupid and I’m sorry for that too. 

Well just to let you know again I love you baby and everything about you!

Forever!

Love

 Sherri W.

P.S. one more thing

I’d really like it

- 13 -

Appellate Case: 03-2388 Page: 13 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806666 
if you would open up

more to me too.

I

 Love

 You!

- 14 -

Medearis’ line of questioning and his reference to the letter because the letter was not

provided during discovery. Upon inquiry from the district court, Medearis’ counsel

expressed his belief that the letter had been sent to the AUSA, but apparently not

received. Counsel for Medearis informed the court that the letter was being used only

for impeachment purposes. The court prohibited Medearis’ counsel from using the

letter because it was not previously disclosed to the government, ostensibly under

Rule 16(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the only rule that

“speaks to materials such as handwritten notes in a defendant’s possession.” United

States v. Moore, 208 F.3d 577, 578 (7th Cir. 2000).

For good reason, at oral argument, the government essentially conceded that

the letter was admissible for impeachment purposes. Rule 16(b)(1)(A) states in

pertinent part: 

If a defendant requests disclosure . . . and the government complies, then

the defendant must permit the government, upon request, to inspect and

to copy or photograph . . . papers, [and] documents . . . if:

(i) the item is within the defendant’s possession, custody,

or control; and 

(ii) the defendant intends to use the item in the defendant’s

case-in-chief at trial.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(A)(i), (ii). “[E]vidence in chief” is defined in the Advisory

Committee Notes to the 1974 Amendments to Rule 16(b)(1)(A) as “any documents

. . . which he intends to introduce in evidence in his case in chief.” Thus, the

Appellate Case: 03-2388 Page: 14 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806666 
- 15 -

requirement of reciprocal pre-trial disclosure under Rule 16(b)(1)(A) includes only

documents which the defendant intends to introduce during his own case-in-chief.

Because Medearis received his requested discovery from the government, he had to

furnish in exchange tangible evidence which he intended to introduce as evidence in

his case-in-chief. Yet, Medearis did not seek to use the letter in his case-in-chief. He

tried to use it for impeachment purposes. Because counsel for Medearis was

attempting to use the letter to impeach Whiting’s testimony, it was not excludable

under Rule 16(b)(1)(A). 

In Moore, during the cross-examination of a prosecution witness, defense

counsel attempted to use a handwritten note signed by the witness for impeachment

purposes. 208 F.3d at 578. As in this case, the district court excluded the use of the

note because a copy had not been provided pre-trial to the government. Id. In finding

that the district court erred, the Moore court noted that, under Rule 16(b)(1)(A), only

evidence the defendant “intends to introduce as evidence in chief at the trial” is

required to be disclosed. 208 F.3d at 579 (internal quotation marks omitted). The

court noted that the defendant did not seek to use the note “as evidence in chief at the

trial,” but only “as a prior inconsistent statement by [the witness] that would

undermine his credibility in the jurors’ eyes.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Because the defendant sought “to use the note to impeach the testimony of a witness

for the prosecution; it was not properly excludable under Rule 16.” 208 F.3d at 579.

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion

when it refused to allow Medearis’ counsel to use the letter to impeach Whiting’s

testimony. The only remaining question is that of harmless error. Under the harmless

error standard, we will reverse only when the “improper evidentiary ruling affects the

substantial rights of the defendant or when we believe that the error has had more

than a slight influence on the verdict.” United States v. Ballew, 40 F.3d 936, 941 (8th

Cir. 1994). 

Appellate Case: 03-2388 Page: 15 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806666 
- 16 -

Initially, we note that, because the district court erroneously held that

Medearis’ counsel could not use the letter on account of a discovery violation, the

court never addressed issues concerning the authenticity of the letter. Indeed, there

were no findings concerning: (1) whether Whiting wrote the letter; or (2) when the

letter was written. However, in conducting our harmless error analysis, we will

assume that the letter was written by Whiting either shortly before or shortly after the

incident in question.

Medearis posits that the letter was essential for proper impeachment of

Whiting’s testimony. First, he suggests that he could have used the letter to show that

Whiting lied on direct examination when, in response to the question of whether the

thing she feared “the most” was losing Medearis to another woman, she said that was

“not what I feared the most.” In the letter, Whiting wrote that losing Medearis to

another woman was what she “fear[ed] the most.”

Although Whiting’s testimony is inconsistent with her statement in the letter,

this additional impeachment evidence would have been of little value. Counsel for

Medearis was able to demonstrate, in painstaking detail, that Whiting gave several

minor inconsistent statements over time. This additional inconsistent statement was

really of no consequence, especially considering that counsel for Medearis was able

to: (1) establish that Whiting generally feared losing Medearis; and (2) explore any

ill motives Whiting may have had concerning her desire to seek revenge against

Medearis for his having relations with other women. On cross-examination, Whiting

acknowledged that her problems with Medearis started when he started seeing other

women. Whiting also admitted that she did not want to lose Medearis to another

woman, and that his relations with other women upset her, especially when he was

seeing one of her best friends. She also acknowledged that she wanted things to work

because they had a child together. All of this evidence suggests that Whiting did not

want to lose Medearis and, in fact, feared losing him, thus providing more than

Appellate Case: 03-2388 Page: 16 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806666 
15Interestingly, Medearis’ counsel never once asked Whiting if she loved

Medearis at anytime before or after the alleged incident. In fact, the record is devoid

of any evidence tending to show that Whiting did not love Medearis. After all, he

was the father of her child. 

- 17 -

adequate fuel for Medearis’ argument that Whiting fabricated her testimony out of

jealousy or to seek revenge against Medearis for seeing other women.

Medearis also posits that Whiting’s statements in the letter concerning how

much she loved Medearis, how comfortable she felt around him, and how it would

be her fault if their relationship failed, would have assisted him in further impeaching

Whiting’s testimony to the point where his substantial rights are now affected. We

disagree. Testimony at trial established that Whiting did care for Medearis, that she

wanted things to work out with Medearis, that her demeanor caused ups and downs

in her relationship with Medearis, and that she felt comfortable to meet with him to

discuss their relationship.15 This evidence essentially provided him with the same

impeachment evidence he claims he lacked.

In our view, the case was not especially close on the aggravated sexual assault

counts. Whiting was taken against her will to a trail off of Wood Road. Whiting’s

testimony in this regard is corroborated by Donald Bear Robe who heard Whiting’s

screams while Medearis drove off from the parking lot of Fred Whiting’s apartment.

Upon arrival at the trail, Medearis started to pull Whiting’s pants down as she pleaded

for him to stop. Eventually, Medearis forced Whiting’s hands behind her head as he

drove his penis into her vagina, telling her he “always wanted to do this.” Medearis

then removed his penis from her vagina and inserted his fingers inside of her vagina,

while Whiting continued to scream. After removing his fingers, Medearis inserted

his penis again and quickly pulled it out, commenting that he could not “f***” her.

Whiting’s version of the forcible nature of the encounter is supported by the

testimony of Dr. Sabovic and the physical evidence. In addition to observing redness

Appellate Case: 03-2388 Page: 17 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806666 
- 18 -

on Whiting’s left thigh and an excoriation of the vaginal vault, Dr. Sabovic observed

that she had fresh bruises on both of her knees, on her left elbow, and on her left

shoulder. Dr. Sabovic opined that Whiting’s injuries were consistent with forced

sexual intercourse. Dr. Sabovic also recovered gravel and sand, which he opined

came from either Whiting’s panties, her other clothing, or her feet. 

At the hospital, a rape kit was administered, which included an oral and vaginal

swab of Whiting. Medearis was found to be the source of the DNA discovered on the

vaginal swab. Moreover, at the hospital, Whiting gave three detailed and thorough

accounts of the incident, one to the hospital staff, one to Sergeant Esther Murray, and

one to a criminal investigator. While a few of the minor details of these reports are

inconsistent with Whiting’s trial testimony, the crucial details concerning where,

when, and how the rape occurred are consistent.

Counsel for Medearis did his best to show that Whiting’s testimony involved

false accusations fueled by either jealousy, anger, or revenge. However, his argument

simply did not carry the day given the physical evidence supporting Whiting’s

allegations of aggravated sexual abuse. Moreover, counsel for Medearis faced an

uphill climb given the fact that Medearis fled for a period of time, used drugs, was

sleeping with other women ostensibly when he was trying to reconcile with Whiting,

engaged, at times, in violent conduct, and asked Grace Her Many Horses how

Whiting was doing several hours after the incident. More importantly, Medearis’

version of the encounter on Wood Road was suspect to say the least, that Whiting’s

extensive bruises were the result of rough sex in the car, that she lost her zipper while

trying to put on her jacket (the second person in less than three days to have that

happen in the same car), and that she fell while trying to get out of the car causing her

clothes to accumulate both stains and gravel. 

Our dissenting colleague takes the position that the letter, assuming it was

written after the incident in question, would have influenced the outcome of the trial.

Appellate Case: 03-2388 Page: 18 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806666 
- 19 -

For several reasons, we respectfully disagree. First, the timing of the letter would

neither have altered Whiting’s trial testimony nor undermined the three detailed and

thorough accounts Whiting gave at the hospital. Second, the timing of the letter

would not have undermined the testimony of Dr. Sabovic and the physical evidence

evincing rape. Finally, the timing of the letter would have done little to aid the uphill

climb faced by Medearis. His pre- and post-incident conduct was profoundly

inculpatory and his version of the incident in question was highly suspect.

In short, the use of the letter would not have influenced or altered the outcome

of the trial, regardless of when it was written. For this reason, we conclude that the

district court’s refusal to allow counsel for Medearis to use the letter allegedly written

by Whiting is harmless error. 

III

Medearis also contends that there is insufficient evidence in the record to

support his two convictions for aggravated sexual abuse.

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider the evidence in

the light most favorable to the government and accept all reasonable inferences which

tend to support the jury’s verdict. United States v. Espino, 317 F.3d 788, 792 (8th

Cir. 2003). While the evidence need not preclude every outcome other than guilty,

we consider whether it would be sufficient to convince a reasonable jury beyond a

reasonable doubt. United States v. Roach, 28 F.3d 729, 736 (8th Cir. 1994). This

court will reverse for insufficient evidence only if no reasonable jury could have

found Medearis guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v.

Henderson-Durand, 985 F.2d 970, 975 (8th Cir. 1993).

To convict Medearis of aggravated sexual abuse, the government had to prove

beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) Medearis is an Indian; (2) Medearis caused

Whiting to engage in a sexual act; (3) Medearis used force or the threat of force to

Appellate Case: 03-2388 Page: 19 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806666 
16The evidence in the record is undisputed concerning the first and fourth

elements. Medearis stipulated that he has some degree of Indian blood and therefore

is recognized as an Indian. Moreover, Harold Compton, Realty Officer with the

Bureau of Indian Affairs for the Rosebud Agency, testified that the location at which

the alleged aggravated sexual abuse occurred was on the Rosebud Reservation and

therefore was considered Indian Country.

17Medearis also suggests that the jury’s not guilty verdict on the kidnapping

count is unconstitutionally irreconcilable with the jury’s guilty verdicts on the

aggravated sexual abuse counts. Because the elements of the kidnapping count are

different from the elements of the aggravated sexual abuse counts, the result is not

necessarily inconsistent. Even if it were, this court has rejected this line of argument.

See, e.g., United States v. Whatley, 133 F.3d 601, 606 (8th Cir. 1998) (“The only

relevant question when reconciling inconsistent verdicts . . . is whether there was

enough evidence presented to support the conviction. . . . Inconsistent verdicts are

not, on their own, sufficient grounds for reversal or a new trial.”).

- 20 -

cause Whiting to engage in a sexual act; and (4) the events occurred on Indian land.

United States v. Eagle, 133 F.3d 608, 610 (8th Cir. 1998). Only the second and third

elements are in dispute.16

We believe the evidence is more than sufficient on the second and third

elements. The evidence described in the preceding section of this opinion amply

supports the jury’s conclusion that Medearis used force or the threat of force to cause

Whiting to engage in two sexual acts.17

Appellate Case: 03-2388 Page: 20 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806666 
18Following his convictions, Medearis filed a motion for new trial based on

newly discovered evidence, which the district court denied. In a one-paragraph

argument on appeal, Medearis claims this was error. We have reviewed Medearis’

argument and our analysis of the controlling factors establishes that his argument is

without merit. See United States v. Duke, 255 F.3d 656, 659 (8th Cir. 2001) (holding

that to justify a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence, “(1) the evidence

must have been discovered after trial; (2) the failure to discover this evidence must

not be attributable to a lack of due diligence on the part of the movant; (3) the

evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the evidence must be

material; and (5) the evidence must be likely to produce an acquittal if a new trial is

granted”).

- 21 -

IV

For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.18

BYE, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

With due respect, I dissent from that part of the court's judgment concluding

Mr. Medearis was not substantially prejudiced by the district court's refusal to admit

the letter to impeach Ms. Whiting’s testimony on cross examination.

The majority takes an all-too-myopic view of the impeachment process. True,

the letter would have been cumulative to the extent it impeached certain details of

Ms. Whiting's testimony, such as her fear of losing Mr. Medearis to another woman.

But, if written after the assault, the letter's competence to impeach such testimony is

dwarfed by its power to undermine Ms. Whiting's ultimate statements – that she was

taken against her will from her cousin’s home, physically and psychologically abused,

and then forcibly raped by Mr. Medearis. Well versed in the subtleties of the rules

of evidence, we may be able to so isolate each statement in the letter as to minimize

the letter’s overall power to impeach. But I cannot believe a jury of Mr. Medearis's

peers, taking a common-sense view of the matter, would not have wondered how Ms.

Whiting, in so effusive a letter, could have vowed her lasting love for, and expressed

Appellate Case: 03-2388 Page: 21 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806666 
- 22 -

her dread of losing, the man she had recently accused of sexual assault against her

person. 

Because I cannot say the jury would have been unaffected by such

impeachment evidence, I must conclude the district court's error worked substantial

prejudice upon the defense and therefore was not harmless. Accordingly, I

respectfully dissent.

 

Appellate Case: 03-2388 Page: 22 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806666