Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-08023/USCOURTS-ca10-92-08023-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Gregory Thomas Weir
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appel lee, 

FIL , . .J 

United St.ates Court of Appeal~ Tenth Circuit 

MAY 10 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

vs. 

GREGORY THOMAS WEIR, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 92-8023 

(D.C. No. 91CR055-1B) 

(District of Wyoming) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, MCWILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, and SAFFELS, 

District Judge**· 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th cir. R. 36.3. 

** The Honorable Dale E. Saffels, United States Senior District 

Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

The defendant-appellant Gregory Weir was charged and 

convicted of one count of aggravated sexual assault, 18 U.S.C. § 

2241 (a) (1), and was sentenced to 78 months imprisonment. The 

assault took place at Yellowstone National Park. 

jurisdiction under 18 u.s.c. § 3742 and affirm. 

We exercise 

On the night of May 13, 1991, Jill Rice, a summer employee at 

Yellowstone National Park, reported that she had been raped at the 

Appellate Case: 92-8023 Document: 010110114123 Date Filed: 05/10/1993 Page: 1 
Bitterroot Dormitory by an individual she knew as "Greg." It was 

eventually determined that the "Greg" she was referring to was the 

defendant, Gregory Weir. The defendant contended that Ms. Rice had 

consented to the sexual encounter. 

The victim was examined that night by Dr. Daniel Hudgins who 

took various samples for a sexual assault kit. She was also 

examined several days later by Dr. Robert McGuire for evidence of 

the rape. Both physicians testified at trial. The defendant also 

consented to having various samples tested for the completion of a 

sexual assault kit on him. These two kits later were lost, along 

with the victim's clothing, although Jalene Griffin, forensic 

scientist with the Wyoming Department of Criminal Investigation, 

testified regarding the test results. 

Also testifying for the government at trial was Linda Intfen, 

a Resource Specialist teacher from California, who discussed the 

victim's cognitive and academic functioning. Ms. Intfen was the 

victim's teacher for a time and described her as having a learning 

problem. 

The defendant subpoenaed several individuals, two of whom did 

not appear because of the United States Marshal's inexplicable 

failure to serve the subpoenas. Only witness Michael Rowe was 

deemed critical by the defense. Although the defendant informed 

the court at the beginning of trial that the subpoenas had not been 

served, he did not seek further assistance of the court. The jury 

found the defendant guilty of one count of aggravated sexual 

assault. 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-8023 Document: 010110114123 Date Filed: 05/10/1993 Page: 2 
The defendant appeals his conviction and first alleges his 

trial counsel was ineffective. The district court had occasion to 

address this issue below and we review the district court's finding 

of facts under the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. 

Miller, 907 F.2d 994, 996 {10th Cir. 1990). The ultimate question 

of whether the defendant's trial counsel was ineffective is subject 

to plenary review. Id. The district court found that the 

defendant had the benefit of a reasonably competent attorney 

throughout the entire trial process. 

It is well settled that the defendant bears the burden of 

showing that trial counsel's performance was deficient and that the 

deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 {1984). The test in assessing trial 

counsel's performance is one of objective reasonableness. 466 U.S. 

at 687-88. In addition, courts should avoid viewing trial 

counsel's tactical decisions with hindsight, and give deference to 

the strategy employed by defendant's attorney. Id. at 689. As we 

have stated, the reasonableness standard is exercising all of the 

"skill, judgment and diligence of a reasonably competent defense 

attorney." Osborn v. Shillinger, 861 F.2d 612, 625 {10th Cir. 

1988) (citations omitted). Because we agree with the district 

court that trial counsel in this case performed in all respects as 

a reasonably competent defense attorney, we need not reach the 

second prong of the Strickland test. 

Generally the grounds asserted by defendant to challenge his 

trial counsel's performance are that counsel failed to employ 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-8023 Document: 010110114123 Date Filed: 05/10/1993 Page: 3 
experts to discredit the government's medical experts and the 

teacher who testified; that counsel failed to challenge the 

foundation of the state crime lab employee's expertise; that 

counsel did not introduce a transcript of a taped conversation 

between the defendant and one of the Rangers; and that counsel did 

not advise the trial court of the United States Marshal's failure 

to serve the subpoena on one of his witnesses. 

We have examined the trial transcripts and the district 

court's order and find no error. Trial counsel effectively crossexamined all of the experts, interposed appropriate objections, and 

brought out the deficiencies of the testimony in his closing 

argument. Given the consistency of the medical testimony with the 

testimony of other government witnesses, including the victim, 

trial counsel did a competent job of attempting to bring out 

weaknesses in that testimony. In hindsight it might have been , 

advisable to employ an expert for the defense, but failure to do so 

did not render counsel's performance ineffective. 

Defendant contends that counsel should have attempted to 

introduce a tape between Ranger Love and the defendant to prove the 

defendant did not try to use an alias the night of the crime. 

Because of the concern that use of an alias might imply a guilty 

state of mind, it was important to the defendant that he show he 

had not employed an alias. Ranger Love testified at trial, 

however, that the defendant did not use the alias. The tape would 

not have added anything to the defense. Thus, counsel was 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-8023 Document: 010110114123 Date Filed: 05/10/1993 Page: 4 
justified in not attempting to utilize a tape which was apparently 

unintelligible for the most part. 

The defendant also contended that trial counsel was 

ineffective in failing to seek the court's assistance to obtain 

service of his subpoena for witness Michael Rowe. The defendant 

admits this witness did not become important until rebuttal. 

Defendant filed an affidavit of Michael Rowe setting forth the 

substance of his testimony. While some of the testimony supported 

the defendant's explanation of the timing of his encounter with the 

victim, other portions contradicted the defendant's testimony in 

important respects. The contradictory testimony supported the 

testimony of several government witnesses. The failure of trial 

counsel to more vigorously seek the appearance of this witness 

cannot be the basis for a claim of ineffectiveness. 

Although in hindsight trial counsel could have employed 

different strategies, his failure to do so did not render his 

performance ineffective. 

The defendant next contends he was denied his sixth Amendment 

right to compulsory process because the United States Marshal's 

office in Las Vegas, Nevada, failed to serve his subpoena on 

Michael Rowe. The defendant claimed the victim consented to having 

sex with him and a key to his defense was the timing of the events 

in question. The defendant contends the incident happened two 

hours earlier than claimed by the victim, which would give a two 

hour unexplained period of time between the incident and when the 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-8023 Document: 010110114123 Date Filed: 05/10/1993 Page: 5 
victim reported the rape. He contends Michael Rowe would have 

corroborated his story. 

In order for the defendant to show a denial of his 

constitutional right to compulsory process, the defendant must show 

that the witness's testimony would have been both favorable and 

material. United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867 

(1982). Just showing he was deprived of the testimony of a certain 

witness is not sufficient to establish a constitutional violation. 

Id. Testimony is material if there is a reasonable likelihood it 

would have affected the judgment of the trier of fact. Id. at 873-

74. 

Two government witnesses, Joanna Mitchell and Jennifer Parker, 

testified that the defendant was in their room the night of the 

crime, from approximately 7:30 p.m. until 8:30 or 9:00 p.m. This 

corroborates the timing of the incident as testified to by the 

victim. The defendant, however, testified he did not have to work 

that day and was in his dormitory drinking beer until he went to 

dinner with Michael Rowe at about 6:30 p.m. The defendant further 

testified he left the dining room about 7: 00 p.m. and saw the 

victim in her dormitory shortly thereafter. The victim, the 

defendant and Michael Rowe then drove back to Bitterroot Dormitory, 

where the defendant and Rowe lived, at about 7:30 p.m. The 

defendant testified the victim left his room by 8:30. 

In Michael Rowe's affidavit, however, he stated he would 

testify that he and the defendant were in Mitchell's and Parker's 

room until they went to dinner, but did not return to the women's 

6 

Appellate Case: 92-8023 Document: 010110114123 Date Filed: 05/10/1993 Page: 6 
room after dinner. This testimony would have been contrary to the 

defendant's testimony of his whereabouts prior to dinner. Further, 

Rowe would have testified that he accompanied the defendant and the 

victim to Bitterroot Dormitory after dinner. Thus, Rowe would have 

corroborated part of the defendant's testimony, but contradicted it 

in other respects. In addition, the government had about five 

witnesses, including the victim, who placed the incident 

approximately two hours later than the time testified to by the 

defendant. Because of its contradictory nature, the testimony 

cannot be characterized as favorable and we find there is not a 

reasonable likelihood it would have affected the judgment of the 

trier of fact. 

Finally, the defendant contends that his Fifth Amendment right 

to due process was violated by the loss of the rape kits and the 

victim's clothing. After testing by the Wyoming State Crime Lab, 

the evidence was mailed to the Park Rangers at Yellowstone National 

Park in accordance with policy and procedure. Due to the 

negligence of the postal service employees, however, the evidence 

was lost. The defendant concedes that there was no bad faith on 

the part of the government in the loss of the evidence. The 

defendant believes this evidence was critical to the defense 

because the sexual acts described by the victim were different than 

those described by the defendant, and the presence or absence of 

certain bodily fluids on the clothing or obtained from the rape 

kits might be exculpatory. 

7 

Appellate Case: 92-8023 Document: 010110114123 Date Filed: 05/10/1993 Page: 7 
We have previously stated that loss or destruction of evidence 

turns on the principles set forth in California v. Trombetta, 467 

U.S. 479 (1984), and Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988). 

United States v. Donaldson, 915 F.2d 612, 614 (10th Cir. 1990). 

For a constitutional violation, the Court in Trombetta required 

that the exculpatory nature of the evidence be apparent before its 

loss or destruction and of such a nature that comparable evidence 

could not be obtained by other reasonable means. 467 U.S. at 489. 

The Court in Youngblood added the requirement, "that unless a 

criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, 

failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute 

a denial of due process of law." 488 U.S. at 58. 

The defendant admits there was no bad faith on the part of the 

government involved in the loss of the evidence. While he argues 

the exculpatory nature of the evidence should have been apparent 

prior to its loss, we disagree. The most that can be said about 

the rape kits and the victim's clothing is that further testing may 

have provided useful evidence for the defendant. In the absence of 

a showing of bad faith on the part of the government, there can be 

no violation of due process. 

AFFIRMED. 

8 

Entered for the Court 

Dale E. Saffels 

District Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-8023 Document: 010110114123 Date Filed: 05/10/1993 Page: 8