# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 8- 26 04

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll Plai nt if

f - Ap pe ll ee

v.

Ira Al an Aria s

l Defen da nt - App el la nt

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta - Abe rd een

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 13 , 20 19

Fil ed : Au gu st 26 , 20 19

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re COLLOTON, KE LLY, and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Ira Alan Aria s was co nv ic te d by a ju r y o f th ree co un ts of ag gr av at ed se xu al

ab us e of a c h il d. Aria s rai se s th ree is su es on ap pe al

. Fi rs t, he arg ue s th at th e tri al

co ur t erre d in pe rm it ti ng two wit ne ss es to of fer Fed eral Ru le of Evi d e n ce 41 3

te st im on y be cau se th ei r al le ga ti on s were no t su bs ta nt ia ll y si m il ar to th e in st an t

of fen se an d were su bjec t to ex cl us io n un de r Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 3 as un fai rlypr ejud ic ia l to hi m

. Seco nd

, he arg ue s th at a m is tri al was req ui red whe n a go ve rn m en t

wit ne ss bl ur te d a st at em en t th at vi ol at ed an or de r in li min e pr oh ib it in g refe ren ces to

Aria s’s in carc erat io n. Thi rd

, he arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by

pe rm it ti ng te st im on y by th e vi ct im th at sh e ha d be en di ag no se d wit h ad di ti on al

m en ta l he al th is su es po st -o ffen se whi le fai li ng to c o nd uc t an in ca mer a rev ie w of

m en ta l he al th reco rd s rel at ed to th e di ag no si s. W e affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t on th e fir st

two is su es

, bu t rem an d to th e di st ric t c o u r t f o r an in ca mer a rev ie w of th e m en ta l

he al th reco r d s to de te rm in e whe th er refu sa l to al lo w acce ss to th e reco rd s was

ha rm le ss

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

Aria s at te nd ed hi s si st er’s wed di ng on May 2, 20 15

. His m in or n i ece, K.P.,

al so at te nd ed th e wed di ng

. K.P. la te r al le ge d th at Aria s se xu al ly as sa ul te d he r in th e

ho te l ro om th ey were sh ari ng fo r th e wed di ng

. In pa rti cu la r, K.P. al le ge d th at Aria s

gr op ed he r ge ni ta ls be fo re fo rci bl y rap in g he r. K.P

. r e p or te d th at sh e al so su ffer ed

sc arri ng on he r rig ht arm fro m be in g pi nn ed ag ai ns t a be d fram e. The re were no ot he r

wit ne ss es to th e as sa ul t.

Fo ll owi ng a vo lu nt ary di sm is sa l wi th ou t pr ejud ic e of a se co nd su pe rced in g

in di ct m en t, th e g ran d ju ry in di ct ed Aria s o n Ap ril 4, 2 01 8, ch arg in g h im wit h th ree

co un ts of Agg rav at ed S e x u a l A b u s e of a Ch il d, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 11 53

,

22 41 (c), an d 2 24 6( 2) (A), (B), an d (C ). The t ria l co m m en ced on Apri l 1 6, 2 01 8.

Pri or to tri al

, th e di st ric t co ur t ru le d on s e v e r al m ot io ns

. The fir st di sp ut e

cen te red aro un d K.P.’ s m en ta l he al th reco rd s. Aria s so ug ht th e pr od uc ti on of K.P.’ s

m en ta l h e a l t h r eco rd s fro m a faci li ty in Ten ne ss ee whe re K.P. rep or te dl y rece iv ed

tre at m en t. Ari a s was aware of th e reco rd s be cau se K.P.’ s gr an dm ot he r st at ed th at

K.P. was rece iv in g tre at m en t at th e faci li ty. The co ur t de ni ed th e req ue st de em in g it

a “ fis hi ng ex pe di ti on .” Aria s ne xt m ov ed fo r pr od uc ti on of m en ta l he al th reco rd s pr e-

-2

-da ti ng th e a l l e g e d of fen se da te

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e se co nd m ot io n, ag ai n

fin di ng th at th e req ue st s ap pe ared to be a “ fis hi ng ex pe di ti on ” an d th at K.P.’ s m en ta l

he al th reco rd s wer e p ro te ct ed by the ps y ch ot he rap is t-p at ie nt pri vi le ge

. At n o p oi nt

du rin g t he rel ev an t pr oc eed in gs was th e go ve rn m en t in po ss es si on of t he req ue st ed

tre at m en t reco rd s. The co ur t di d, ho wev er, ru le th at Aria s w o u ld be al lo wed to

qu es ti on th e v ic ti m

reg ard in g her di ag no si s o f bi po la r di so rd er wh ic h p re-d at ed th e

al le ge d a ss au lt

.

The go ve rn m en t ga ve no ti ce of fiv e wit ne ss es it in te nd ed to cal l to te st ify un de r

Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 41 3. Aria s mo v e d to st rik e each of th e wit ne ss es

,

co nt en di ng th at th e te st im on y was no t su ffi ci en tl y si m il ar an d th a t an y pr ob at iv e

va lu e was su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh e d b y i t s un fai r pr ejud ic e. Afte r rev ie win g th e

pr op os ed te st im on y

, th e di st ric t co ur t ex cl ud ed th ree of th e wit ne ss es ’s te st im on y as

to o di ss im il ar fro m th e cu rren t of fen se to “ es ta bl is h a pa tt ern of be ha vi or ” un de r Ru le

41 3. The di st ric t co ur t pe rm it te d th e pr op os ed te st im on y fro m th e r em ai ni ng two

wit ne ss es

. Each of th os e two wit ne ss es was pr ep ared to t e s t i f y t h at

, li ke K.P., sh e

kn ew Aria s an d was se xu al ly as sa ul te d by hi m

. Each wit ne ss wou ld al so te st ify: th at

Aria s gr op ed th e wit ne ss ’s br eas ts ; th at he ot he rwis e us ed fo rce th ro ug h o u t t h e

as sa ul t; th at he us ed al co ho l on th e ni gh t of th e as sa ul t; th at th e as sa ul t hap pe ne d in

th e earl y mo r n i n g ho ur s; an d th at he co m m it te d th e as sa ul t in a lo cat io n whe re th e

wit ne ss was is ol at ed

. The di st ric t co ur t he l d t h a t th is te st im on y was su ffi ci en tl y

si m il ar to th e in st an t of

fen se to su pp or t ad m is si on

. Fi na ll y

, th e di st ric t co ur t en te red

an or de r in li min e pr oh ib it in g t he in tro du ct io n of ev id en ce reg ard in g Aria s’s

in carc erat io n o r rec en t re le as e fro m in carc erat io n.

At t ria l th e go ve rn m en t so ug ht to in tro du ce th e is su e of K.P.’ s m en ta l he al th

on di rect ex am in at io n. Th e g ov ern m en t beg an by as ki ng K.P. whet he r he r pa ren ts ’

di vo rce ha d an effe ct on he r he al th

. K.P. res po n d ed th at sh e was di ag no se d wit h

d e p r e s s io n. The go ve rn m en t th en as ke d he r: “ Hav e y ou be en di ag no se d wit h

-3

-a nyth in g el se ? ” K.P. res po nd ed

, “ Yes

. Afte r th is in ci de nt ha d ha pp en ed

, n o t t h e

di vo rce.” Arias ’s ob

jecti on was o ve rru le d.

The qu es ti on in g co nt in ue d. The g o ve rn m en t ev en tu al ly as ke d th e fo ll owi ng

qu es ti on : “ S i n c e t he as sa ul t, ha ve y ou si nc e be en di ag no se d wit h so m et hi ng el se ? ”

K.P. res po nd ed “ Yes .” Aria s’s ob jecti on was ag a i n o v e r r u le d. The go ve rn m en t

fo ll owe d u p, as ki ng “ W ha t? ”, to whi ch K.P. resp on de d, “ Anx ie ty and PTSD.”

Aria s as ke d fo r le av e to m ak e a m ot io n ou ts id e of th e pr es en ce of th e jury an d

to st rik e th e an swe r. In r es po ns e, th e co ur t o ffer ed th e fo ll owi ng in st ru ct io n:

The Co ur t wil l in st ru ct y ou th at ps y ch ol og ic al ly

– ps y ch ol og i c al

sym pt om s di ag no s e d po st -in ci de nt

, po st -Ma y of 20 15

, are ex tre m el y

l i mi t e d rel ev an ce to y ou al l, if an y

. W ha t th e Co ur t was ex pe ct in g is

so m et hi ng th at ha d be en di ag no se d pr io r to May of 20 15 as th e an swe r.

Bu t t he Co ur t d oe s t hi nk th at th e te st im on y as g iv en can st an d.

Dur in g rece ss

, Aria s ob

jecte d to th e te st im on y an d m ov ed fo r a m is tri al

, arg ui ng th at

it was “ a du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n an d a co nf ro nt a t i o n cl au se vi ol at io n” to al lo w

te st im on y ab ou t K.P.’ s m en ta l he al th whi le de nyin g acce ss t o t h e w it ne ss ’s m en ta l

he al th reco rd s. Aria s no te d th at

, wit ho ut th e reco rd s, he ha d no id ea whet he r or no t

th at di ag no si s ha d ev er be en m ad e. The co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n an d st at ed th at it di d

no t be li ev e a l l owi ng th e st at em en t was “ ha rm fu l in an y si gn ifi can t way to th e

de fen da nt .”

Aria s ren ewed hi s ob

jecti on th e fo ll owi ng da y

, rei te rat in g th e arg um en t th at a

di ag no si s of PTSD by a m en ta l he al th pr of es si on al bo ls te red th e cred ib il it y of K.P.’ s

al le ga ti on s and th at fu nd am en ta l fa irn es s re qu ire d t ha t t he m en ta l h eal th reco rd s be

-4

-pr od uc ed to al lo w fo r effe ct iv e cro ss -ex am in at io n of K.P. on th at po in t. The di st ric t 1

co ur t ag ai n de ni ed th e m ot io n, ex pl ai ni ng th at al lo win g te st im on y ab ou t K.P.’ s pr eex is ti ng m en ta l he al th is su es was su ffi ci en t wit ho ut req ui rin g rev ie w of m en ta l he al th

reco rd s.

A po li ce of

fic er al so te st ifi ed ab ou t th e in ve st ig at io n of Aria s aft er th e al le ge d

as sa ul t of one of th e Ru le 41 3 wit ne ss es

. Dur in g hi s tes ti m on y

, he st at ed th at Aria s

was in cu st od y in 20 01 be cau se Aria s was “ un de r arre st fo r a pa ro le vi ol at io n.” Aria s

ob jecte d, arg ui ng th at th e te st im on y vi ol at ed th e or de r in li min e pr oh ib it in g ev id en ce

ab o u t h i s p r io r in carc erat io n. The co ur t ga ve th e jury th e fo ll owi ng cu rat iv e

in st ru ct io n:

Dis reg ard an y th in g ab ou t a p a r ol e vi ol at io n. Peo pl e can be on

p a r ol e fo r an y sm al l m at te r. And th e fact th at he was —h ad a pa ro l e

vi ol at io n is n’t to be co ns id ered by y ou in an y way

. The an swe r th at th e

Co ur t was lo ok in g fo r is th at he was in cu st od y

. The Co ur t wil l ta ke up

an y fu rth er m at te rs ou ts id e th e he ari ng of th e jury, bu t y ou are in st ru ct ed

to di sr eg ard th at th ere was so m e p aro le vi ol at io n.

Aria s was co nv ic te d on al l th ree co un ts

. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Aria s to

th ree c on cu rren t t erm s of 3 60 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t t o b e fo ll owe d b y si x years o f

su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Aria s t im el y ap pe al ed

.

II

. Dis cus si on

A. Adm is si on of Ev id en ce o f Pri or Sex ua l M is co nd uc t

As Aria s’s co un se l pu t it

, “ Afte r ob ta in in g th at Co ur t’s ru li ng th at th e m en ta l 1

he al th reco rd s wil l no t be rel eas ed

, m y po si ti on is th e go ve rn m en t op en s th e do or by

as ki ng K.P. ab ou t po st -in ci de nt di ag no si s, an d K.P. waiv es he r ps y ch ot he rap is t

pr iv il eg e b y

di sc lo si ng he r di ag no si s.”

-5

-“ W e wil l no t rev ers e a di st ric t co ur t’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s un le ss th ey co ns ti tu te

a cl ear an d pr ejud ic ia l ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Hol y Bu ll

, 61 3 F.3 d 87 1,

87 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). A “ di st ric t co ur t’s ba la nc e of th e p r e ju d i c ia l an d pr ob at iv e

im pa ct s of ev id en ce is acco rd ed ‘great de fere nc e.’” Uni te d St at es v. Cro w Eag le

, 70 5

F.3 d 32 5, 32 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Pu m pk in Seed

, 57 2 F.3 d 55 2,

55 8 (8 th Cir . 20 09 )).

Ru le 41 3( a) sp eci fic al ly al lo ws th e co ur t to ad m it ev id en ce th at th e accu se d ha s

co m m it te d “ an y ot he r se xu al as sa ul t.” Fed

. R. Ev i d

. 41 3( a). The ev id en ce of pr io r

si m il ar of

fen se s m ay be co ns id ered f or al l rel ev an t pu rp os es “ in cl ud in g th e

de fen da nt ’s p ro pe ns it y to co m m it su ch of

fen se s.” Uni te d St at es v. G a b e , 2 37 F.3 d

95 4, 95 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (ci ti ng Fed

. R. Evi d

. 4 1 3 ( a )

, 4 14 (a))

. Su ch ev id en ce st il l

m us t sa ti sf y F e d e r a l Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 3, bu t sh ou ld be ad m it te d “ un le ss it s

pr ob at iv e va lu e is ‘sub st an ti al ly ou twei gh ed ’ by on e or m or e of th e fact or s

en um erat ed in Ru le 40 3

, i n cl ud in g ‘the da ng er of un fai r pr ejud ic e.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng

U n i t e d S ta te s v. LeCo m

pt e, 13 1 F.3 d 76 7, 76 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 )). Our st an da rd f o r

ad m i t t i n g ev id en ce un de r Ru le 41 3 reco gn iz es th at th e ru le em bo di es a “ st ro ng

le gi sl at iv e jud gm en t t h a t e vi de nc e of pr io r se xu al of fen se s sh ou ld or di na ril y be

ad m is si bl e.” LeCo m

pt e, 13 1 F .3d at 7 69

.

Und er ou r de fere nt ia l st an da rd of rev ie w, th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to ad m it

th e te st im on y of two wit ne ss es who cl ai m ed th ey were se xu al ly as sa ul te d by Aria s di d

no t am ou nt to a cl ear an d pr ejud ic ia l ab us e of di sc ret io n. The reco rd refl ect s th at th e

di st ric t co ur t en ga ge d in th e req ui red ba la nc in g te st be fo re de ci di ng to ad m it th e

te st im on y of th e two wit ne ss es (an d ex cl ud ed th ree ot he r wit ne ss es be cau se th ei r

al le ge d in ci de nt s were no t m ean in gf ul ly si m il ar to th e in st an t cas e). The pr op os ed

te st im on y of th e two wit ne ss es ai m ed t o e s ta bl is h a pa tt ern of be ha vi or in whi ch

Aria s, aft er a ni gh t of dr in ki ng

, fel t em bo ld en ed to co m

m it se xu al as sa ul t on fem al es

h e was fam il ia r wit h on ce th ey were in se cl ud ed lo cat io ns

. W hi le th ere we r e o t h e r

fact ua l d is crep an ci es am on g t he ass au lt s, Aria s was gi ve n th e op po rtu ni ty to cr os s-

-6

-ex am in e th e wit ne ss es reg ar d i n g th os e di ffer en ces an d to arg ue to th e jury th at th e

in ci de nt s were to o di ss im il ar to be gi ve n an y weig ht

. Aria s li ke wis e ha d a ch an ce to

ad dr es s ot he r is su es co nc ern in g th e rel ia bi li ty of th e wit ne ss es ’ te st im on y

, su ch as th e

la ps e in ti m e si nc e th e pr io r as sa ul t, th ro ug h cro ss -ex am in at io n. Cf. Gab e, 23 7 F.3 d

at 96 0 (aff

irming th e ad m is si on of te st im on y of an as sa ul t th at oc cu rred twen ty y ears

be fo re th e of

fen se at is su e by n ot in g t h a t is su es of rel ia bi li ty were su bjec t to cro ss

ex am in at io n)

.

W hi le we un de rs ta nd Aria s’ ob jecti on s th at th es e i nc id en ts are no t si m il ar

en ou gh or cl os e en ou gh in ti m e an d ack no wled ge th at th is pr es en ts a cl os e qu es ti on

,

un de r ou r pr eced en t ap pl y in g Ru le 41 3, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t co m m it a cl ear an d

pr ejud ic ia l ab us e of di sc ret io n by al l o w i n g t e st im on y fro m th e two wit ne ss es

. See

Uni te d St at es v. Nev er Mi ss es A Sh ot

, 78 1 F.3 d 10 17

, 10 28 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (aff irming

th at th e ap pl ic ab le le ga l st an da rd un de r Ru le 41 3 an d Ru le 40 3 “ do es n’t req ui re th at

th e te st im on y

be id en ti cal or n earl y id en ti cal to wha t’s al le ge d i n t he in di ct m en t” ). 2

B. Den ia l of Mo ti on fo r Mi st ria l Reg ard in g Evi de nc e of Aria s’s Pri or

In carc erat io n

“ The de ni al of a m ot io n fo r m i s t r i al is rev ie wed fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n.”

Uni te d St at es v. Tho m

ps on

, 53 3 F.3 d 96 4, 97 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d Stat es

v. Sm it h, 48 7 F.3 d 61 8, 62 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )). “ W e gi ve th e di s tri ct co ur t ‘bro ad

Aria s al so arg ue s th at va rio us rem ark s of fere d du rin g th e te st im on y of on e of 2

th e wit ne ss es wer e s o in fla m m at or y th at th ey co ul d no t be ad dr es se d vi a cu rat iv e

act io n by th e co ur t. The co ur t su st ai ne d ob jecti on s t o a l mo s t a l l of th e ch al le ng ed

te st im on y an d sp eci fic al ly in fo rm ed th e jury to di sr eg ard se ve ral of th e co mm en ts

.

“ A jury is pr es um ed to fo ll ow it s in st ru ct io ns .” Uni te d St at es v. Fl ut e, 36 3 F.3 d 67 6,

67 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (q uo ti ng W eek s v. Ang el on e, 52 8 U.S. 22 5, 23 4 (2 00 0) ). W e se e

no cl ear an d pr ejud ic ia l ab us e of di sc ret io n wit h reg ard to th e co ur t’s tre at m en t of th e

co m m en ts

.

-7

-di sc ret io n to gr an t or den y a m ot io n fo r m is tri al be cau se it is in a far bet te r po si ti on

to weig h th e effe ct ’ of an y po ss ib le pr ejud ic e.” Uni t e d S t a t es v. Urq ha rt, 46 9 F.3 d

74 5, 74 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Dav id so n, 12 2 F.3 d 53 1, 53 8 (8 th

Ci r. 19 97 )). “ Adm is si on of a pr ejud ic ia l st at em en t is no rm al ly cu red by st rik in g th e

te st im on y an d in st ru ct in g th e jury to di sr eg ard th e rem ark .” Uni te d St at es v. Bran do n,

52 1 F.3 d 10 19

, 10 26 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Uric k, 43 1 F.3 d 30 0, 30 4

(8 th Ci r. 20 05 )). “ W e as su m e th at th e jury fo ll owe d th e di st ric t co ur t’s in st ru ct io n.”

Uni te d St at es v. Fl et ch er, 3 2 2 F

. 3 d 5 0 8, 51 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). “ [W] he re th ere is

‘sub st an ti al ev id en ce of ap pe ll an t’s gu il t, an y erro r in th e fai lu re to de cl are a m is tri al

was ha rm le ss .’ ” Urq ha rt, 4 69 F.3d at 7 49 (qu ot in g Uri ck , 43 1 F .3d at 3 05 ).

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e i t s d i s c r e t i on whe n it de ni ed th e m ot io n fo r

m is tri al

. The co ur t im m ed ia te ly st ru ck th e te st im o n y a n d pr ov id ed a th or ou gh

cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n to di sp el an y po ss ib il it y th at th e ju r y wou ld co ns id er it

.

Co ns id eri ng th e na tu re o f t h e c h a r ge d of fen se s an d th e ev id en ce ag ai ns t Aria s, a

bl ur te d co m

m en t th at Aria s ha d pr ev io us ly co m m it te d a pa ro le vi ol at io n was no t th e

so rt of ev id en ce th at wou ld crea te “ an ov erwh el m in g pr ob ab il it y ” th at th e jury wou ld

be un ab le to fo ll ow th e co ur t’s cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n. See Uni te d St at es v. Uph of f, 23 2

F.3 d 62 4, 62 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ). W e affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of th e m ot io n fo r

m is tri al

.

C. Den ia l of Mo ti on fo r Mi st ria l Co nc ern in g St at em en ts In di cat in g a PTSD

Diag no si s

The Si xt h Am en dm en t reco gn iz es th e rig ht of de fen da nt s to co nf ro nt wit ne ss es

in cri m in al pr oc eed in gs

. See U.S. Co ns t. a men d

. VI. W e or di na ril y rev ie w

“ ev id en ti ary ru li ng s reg ard in g th e sc op e of a cro ss ex am in at io n f o r a b us e of

di sc ret io n, bu t whe re th e Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se is im

pl ic at ed

, we co ns id er th e m at te r

de no vo .” Uni te d St at es v. W hi te Pl um e, 84 7 F.3 d 62 4, 62 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (q uo ti ng

Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, 79 6 F.3 d 95 1, 96 0 ( 8 t h C i r

. 20 15 )). The Co nf ro nt at io n

-8

-Cl au se “ gu aran te es an op po rt un it y fo r effe ct iv e cr o s s

- e xa m in at io n, no t

cro ss -ex am in at io n th at is effe ct iv e in wh a te ve r way

, an d to wha te ve r ex te nt

, th e

d efen se m ig ht wis h.” Uni te d St at es v. Ja ss o, 70 1 F.3 d 31 4, 31 6 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 1 2 )

(q uo ti ng Dela ware v. Fen st erer

, 47 4 U.S. 15

, 20 (1 98 5) (p er cu ria m )). Aria s argu es

th at th e joi nt effe ct of th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to bo th pe rm it K.P.’ s te st im on y th at

sh e ha d be en di ag no se d wit h PTSD aft er th e al le ge d as sa ul t an d de ny Aria s’s req ue st

th at an y reco rd s rel at ed to th at di ag no si s be pr od uc ed fo r ex am in at io n de ni ed hi m th e

op po rtu ni ty to effe ct iv el y cro ss -ex am in e hi s accu se r. The C on fro nt at io n Cl au se

pr ov id es two types of pr ot ect io n fo r a cri m in al de fen d a n t : t h e r ig ht to ph y si cal ly

co nf ro nt hi s a c c u s e r a nd th e rig ht to co nd uc t cro ss -ex am in at io n. Pen ns y lv an ia v.

Ri tc hi e, 48 0 U.S. 39

, 51 (2 01 8) (p lu ral it y op in io n) (ci ti ng Fen st erer

, 47 4 U.S. at 18

-

19 (1 98 5) ). W e do no t di sp ut e th e pl ur al it y vi ew in Ri tc hi e th at th e r i g h t of

co nf ro nt at io n is a tri al rig ht an d no t a “ co ns ti tu ti on al ly co m pe ll ed ru le of pr et ria l

di sc ov ery. ” Id . at 5 2 (p lu ral it y op in io n)

.

At th e sa m e ti m e, we ag ree wit h Aria s th at K.P.’ s te st im on y t h a t sh e ha d

rece iv ed a po st -as s a u l t di ag no si s of PTSD te nd s to su bs ta nt ia ll y bo ls te r he r

accu sa ti on of a se xu al as sa ul t. Th e c l e a r i mp l ic at io n of th e te st im on y is th at an

ob jecti ve m ed ic al pr of

es si on al fo un d th at sh e ha d su ffer ed a tra um at ic ev en t, an d th e

t i mi n g o f th e di ag no si s wou ld te nd to su gg es t to th e jury th at th e as sa ul t wa s t h a t

ev en t.

W e li ke wis e ag ree wit h Aria s th at th e co ur t’s de ci si on t o pe rm it qu es ti on in g

on ot he r m en ta l he al th is su es , s uc h as he r pr e-as sa ul t d ia gn os is of bi po la r di so rd er,

di d no t ad dr es s th e bo ls te rin g is su e. The di st ric t co ur t’s res po ns e to Aria s’s ob jecti on

rei te rat ed th at th e de fen se wou ld be ab le to qu es ti on th e vi c t i m’s rel ia bi li ty on th e

ba si s of he r m en ta l he al th

. Bu t th at th eo ry of de fen se co nc ern ed whe th er, on th e ba si s

of ack no wled ge d pr e-ex is ti ng m en ta l he al th is su es

, th e vi ct im m ay ha ve erre d or

ot he rwis e m ad e u n t r u e st at em en ts reg ard in g th e as sa ul t (ev en if un kn owi ng ly).

Aria s’s ob

jecti on s an d m ot io ns fo r m is tri al bo th at th e ti m e of th e st at em en t an d th e

-9

-fo ll owi ng da y m ad e cl ear th at th e PTSD-d ia gn os is te st im on y pr es en te d di ffi cu lt ie s

di ffer en t fro m K.P.’ s pr e-ex is ti ng m en ta l he al th is su es

. W e co nc lu de th e dis tr ic t co ur t

erre d by fai l i n g t o s us ta in Aria s’s ob jecti on to th e pr os ecu to r’s qu es ti on in g th at

el ic it ed te st im on y fro m K.P. ab ou t he r po st -as sa ul t PTSD di ag no si s an d aft er th at

te st im on y was in tro du ced by fai li ng to st rik e it

. W it ho ut acce ss to th e reco rd s, Aria s

was un ab le to as cert ai n whe th er or no t K.P.’ s te st im on y th at sh e ha d be en di ag no se d

wit h PTSD was accu rat e or whe th er ot he r tra uma t i c i n ci de nt s were rel at ed to th e

PTSD di ag no si s— se pa rat e is s u e s de al in g wit h a di st in ct m en ta l il ln es s, an d whi ch

co rres po nd in gl y wou ld rai se al te rn at iv e t h eo rie s of de fen se

. And if th e reco rd s

rev eal ed th at th ere was no di ag no si s, th en Aria s was de ni ed th e op po rtu ni ty to cro ss

ex am in e on an is su e whi ch wou ld ha ve di rect ly rel at ed to K.P.’ s cred ib il it y in a cas e

th at res te d e nt ire ly on c on fli ct in g t es ti m on y

.

W e em ph as iz e th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d no erro r in it s pr et ria l ru li ng s;

ho wev er, on ce th e qu es ti on in g of K.P. o p en ed th e do or to a li ne of qu es ti on in g

reg ard in g he r PTSD, th e Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se be cam e i mpli cat ed

, be cau se if th e

PTSD te st im on y was al lo wed to b e w ei gh ed by th e jury, th e de fen da nt ha d a

co ns ti tu ti on al ly p r o te ct ed op po rtu ni ty fo r effe ct iv e cro ss -ex am in at io n. Our ab il it y

to rev ie w an d an al y ze Aria s’s Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se cl ai m is ha m pe red by th e fact th at

K.P.’ s m en ta l he al th reco rd s ha ve ne ve r be en pr od uc ed

. At th is ti m e we do no t ha ve

th e m ean s fo r effe ct iv e ap pe ll at e rev ie w be cau se no co ur t ha s ev er ex a mi n e d th e

reco rd s in qu es ti on

. As a re s u l t

, we are un ab le to de te rm in e whe th er th e fai lu re to

al lo w acce ss to th e reco rd s was a p e r mi ss ib le li m it at io n on cro ss -ex am in at io n or

whe th er Ari as was de ni ed acce ss to in fo rm at io n t ha t m ig ht dra m at ic al ly und erm in e

th e te st im on y of hi s accu se r, th e so le ey ewit ne ss to th e as sa ul t. It is po ss ib le th at th e

reco rd s co nt ai n no di ag no si s of PTSD. It is po ss ib le th at th e re c o r d s c o n t ai n a

di ag no si s of PTSD rel at ed to th es e of fen se s. It is al so po ss ib le th at K.P. m ig ht ha ve

e x p e r i en ced ot he r tra um at ic ev en ts in he r li fe th at le d to th e PTSD di ag no si s

.

W it ho ut so m e rev ie w of th e reco rd s, we ca nnot ev al ua te A ria s’s Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se

cl ai m

.

-1 0-Acco rd in gl y

, we th in k it ap pr op ria te to rem an d th e cas e fo r th e li m it ed pu rp os e

of co nd uc ti ng an in ca mer a rev ie w of th e reco rd s to de te rm in e th e ap pr op ria te co ur se

of act io n. In Uni te d St at es v. Lap sl ey

, we rem an de d to th e di st ric t co ur t fo r th e

li m it ed pu rp os e of de te rm in in g whe th er or no t di sc lo s ur e of th e id en ti ty of a

co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t was “ es se nt ia l to a fai r de te rm in at io n of the cas e.” 26 3 F.3d

83 9, 84 1 ( 8 t h C i r . 2 00 1)

. In Uni te d St at es v. Garci a, we rem an de d th e cas e so th at

th e di st ric t co ur t co ul d rev ie w t he PSRs of two co op erat in g wit ne ss es in ca mer a to

d e t e r mi ne whe th er th e PSRs co nt ai ne d an y Brad y /Gi gl io in fo rm at io n th at wou l d

sa ti sf y th e m at eri al it y st an da rd

. 56 2 F.3 d 94 7, 95 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). A si m il ar rev ie w

is req ui red in th is cas e to e v a l u at e whe th er th e co ur t’s refu sa l to al lo w acce ss to

K.P.’ s m en ta l he al th reco rd s on ce K.P. te st ifi ed sh e ha d be en di ag no se d wit h PTSD

aft er b ei ng sex ua ll y

ass au lt ed by A ria s was ha rm le ss

.

W e no te t h a t t h is is an un us ua l cas e in th at we are un ab le to de te rm in e th e

pr ejud ic ia l im

pa ct of ev id en ce th at was pu t be fo re th e jury. The go ve rn m en t su gg es ts

th at th e li mi t i n g i n st ru ct io n th at th e co ur t ga ve fo ll owi ng th e st at em en t en su red no

pr ejud ic e res ul te d. The li m it in g in st ru ct io n di d no t in fo rm th e jury to en ti rel y

di sr eg ard th e st at em en t, bu t in st ead at te m pt ed to in st ru ct th e jury to gi ve th e st at em en t

li tt le weig ht

. The in st ru ct io n th eref or e co nt rad ic te d th e or di na ry ru le th at weig hi ng

th e ev id en ce “ is th e pr ov in ce of th e jury”—a ru le whi ch th e co ur t ex pl ic it ly re

in st ru ct ed th e jury on at th e cl os e of tri al

. See Uni te d St at es v. McDo na ld

, 82 6 F.3 d

10 66

, 10 73 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d Stat es v. W hi te

, 79 4 F.3d 91 3, 91 8 (8t h

Ci r. 20 15 )). As a res ul t, we are un ab le to rel y o n t h e p r in ci pl e th at juri es are

pr es um ed to fol lo w th e co ur t’s i ns tru ct io ns

.

On rem an d, th e co ur t is to rev ie w th e reco rd s in ca mer a to ev al ua te whe th er th e

fai lu re to al lo w acce ss to K.P.’ s m en ta l he a l t h reco rd s was ha rm le ss

. If th e co ur t

de te rm in es th a t Aria s was no t ha rm ed by th ei r ex cl us io n, it m ay le av e th e reco rd s

un de r se al to pro te ct th e wit ne ss ’s pri va cy

.

-1 1-II I. Con cl us io n

W e affi rm th e di st ric t co u r t o n a l l is su es be si de s th e m ot io n fo r m is tri al

reg ard in g th e accu si ng wit ne ss ’s te st im on y th at sh e rece iv ed a d i a g n o s i s of PTSD

fo ll owi ng th e as sa ul t. W e rem an d th e cas e to th e di st ric t co ur t fo r th e li m it ed pu rp os e

of co nd uc ti ng an in ca mer a rev ie w of th e reco rd s to de te rm in e whe th er th e fai lu re to

al lo w acce ss to K.P.’ s m en ta l heal th reco rd s was harm le ss

. If the in ca mer a rev ie w

rev eal s no pr od uc ib le ev id en ce an d no po ss ibl e Co nf ro nta tio n Cl au se vi ol at io n ex is ts

,

th e di st ric t co ur t wil l no ti fy th e pa rti es of th is co nc lu si on

. If th e i n ca mer a rev ie w

rev eal s th at th ere m ay ha ve be en a vi ol at io n of Aria s’s rig ht s, th e co ur t m ay pr ov id e

in fo rm at io n t o t he pa rti es for su ch fur th er m ot io ns or b rie fin g a s i s ap pr op ria te

.

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, di ss en ti ng

.

The rig ht to co nf

ro nt at io n un de r th e Si xt h Am en dm en t gu aran te es a de fen da nt

an op po rtu ni ty fo r effe ct iv e cro ss -ex am in at io n. Bu t it do e s no t pr ov id e a rig ht to

co m pe ll ed di sc ov ery of in fo rm at io n fro m a th ird pa rty th at m ig ht as si st th e de fen da nt

in cro ss -ex am in in g a wit ne ss

. The co ur t’s ru li ng th at th e Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se

req ui red pr od uc ti on of m en ta l he al th reco rd s fro m wit ne ss K.P.’ s ps y ch ot he rap is t fo r

us e in cro ss -ex am in in g K.P. ap pe ars to be un pr eced en te d. In m y vi ew, th e de ci si on

co nf li ct s wit h th e rat io na le of Pen ns yl va ni a v. Rit ch ie

, 4 80 U.S. 39

, 51 -5 4 (1 98 7)

(p lu ral it y op in io n)

, an d de ci s i o n s fro m se ve ral ci rcu it s. I co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t

co ur t’s ru li ng s di d no t in fri ng e on ap pe ll an t Aria s’s co ns ti tu ti on al r i g ht to

co nf ro nt at io n, an d I wo ul d a ffi rm th e jud gm en t.

Deci si on s on th e Co nf

ro nt at io n Cl au se “ fal l in to two br oa d cat eg or ie s: cas es

in vo lv in g th e ad m is si on of ou t-o f-co ur t st at em en ts an d cas es in vo lv in g res tri ct io ns

im po se d by la w or b y

th e tri al co ur t on th e sc op e of cro ss -ex am in at io n.” Dela wa re

v. Fen st er er

, 47 4 U.S. 15

, 18 ( 1 9 8 5 ) (p er cu ria m ). Neit he r cat eg or y is im pl ic at ed

he re.

-1 2-The di sp ut ed is su e co nc ern s K. P. ’ s te sti m ony that si nc e Aria s as sa ul te d he r, sh e

ha d be en di ag no se d wit h an xi et y an d PTSD. The wit ne ss te st ifi ed in op en co ur t, so

Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se cas es in th e fir st cat eg or y in vo lv in g ou t of co ur t st at em en ts are

i n ap po si te

. Thi s cas e al so do es no t fal l in to th e se co nd cat eg or y : th e di st ric t c o u r t

“ di d no t li m it th e sc op e or na tu re of de fen se co un se l’s cro ss -ex am in at io n in an y way .”

Id . at 1 9; se e Rit ch ie , 48 0 U.S. at 53 (pl ur al it y op in io n)

.

N o r u l i ng of th e di st ric t co ur t pr ev en te d co un se l fo r Aria s fro m qu es ti on in g

K.P. ab ou t he r PTSD di ag no si s. Co un se l co ul d ha ve as ke d fo r th e who

, wha t, whe n,

an d whe re of th e di ag no si s to ex pl or e whe th er K.P. was cred ib le in rep or ti ng it at

tri al

. He co ul d ha ve pr ob ed K.P. ab ou t he r li fe an d m en ta l he al th hi st or y in an effo rt

to di sc ern or su gg es t ot he r po ss ib le cau se s of PTSD. If K.P. ha d su cces sf ul ly in vo ke d

a p s y ch ot he rap is t-p at ie nt pr iv il eg e to pr ev en t cro ss -ex am in at io n, th en Aria s co ul d

ha ve m ov ed to st rik e he r di rect te st im on y ab ou t PTSD. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Si ng er

,

78 5 F.2 d 2 2 8

, 2 4 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ). The di st ric t co ur t ex pr es sl y of fere d to co ns id er

a di ffer en t l i mi t i n g in st ru ct io n ab ou t K.P.’ s te st im on y

, bu t de fen se co un se l di d no t

pr op os e on e. Tha t co un se l de cl in ed to pu rs ue th es e av en ue s, of co ur se

, do es no t rai se

an is su e u nd er t he Co nf

ro nt at io n C la us e.

It is no t ha rd

, m or eo ve r, to im ag in e so un d st rat eg ic reas on s fo r de fen se co un se l

to fo reg o th e qu es ti on in g. The wit ne ss m ad e on ly on e br ie f m en ti on of PTSD. The

di st ric t co ur t pr om

pt ly in st ru ct ed th e ju r y t ha t ps y ch ol og ic al sym pt om s di ag no se d

aft er the al le ge d in ci de nt ha ve “ ex tre m el y li m it ed rel ev an ce to y ou al l, if any.” The

go ve rn m en t ne ve r m en ti on ed PTSD in fin al arg um en ts to th e jury. Que st io ns fro m

th e de fen se o n th e to pi c m ay well ha ve am pl ifi ed a fact th at was ot he rwis e

un m en ti on ed by th e pr os ecu ti on an d di m in is he d by th e jud ge ’s in st ru ct io n. As th e

di st ric t co ur t ob se rv ed in di sc us si on s wit h co un se l, “ a lo t of th in gs can ha pp en in

on e’s li fe t ha t ca n p ro du ce an xi et y an d P TSD.”

-1 3-The m ajor it y co nc lu de s, ho wev er, th at on ce K.P. te st ifi ed ab ou t th e di ag no si s,

th e Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se req ui red th e di st ric t co ur t to co m pe l pr od uc t i o n of K.P.’ s

tre at m en t reco rd s fro m he r ps y ch ot he rap is t an d di sc l o s e th em to Aria s fo r us e in

cro ss -ex am in in g K.P. The Su pr em e Co ur t i n Rit ch ie ad dr es se d a si m il ar cl ai m th at

t h e Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se en ti tl ed a de fen da nt to co m pe ll ed di sc lo su re of a s t a t e

ag en cy fil e. The fil e in cl ud ed st at em en ts m ad e by th e de fen da nt ’s da ug ht er, who was

a wit ne ss fo r th e pr os ecu ti on , a nd th e de f e n d a n t s o u g ht to acce ss th e fil e fo r us e in

c r o s s

- ex am in in g he r. Onl y se ve n Ju st ic es vo te d on th e m eri ts

, an d a fo ur -J us t i c e

pl ur al it y sq ua rel y reject ed th e de fen da nt ’s arg um en t un de r th e Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se

.

Lik e Aria s, th e de fen da nt i n Ri t c h ie arg ue d th at he co ul d no t effe ct iv el y

qu es ti on a wit ne ss wit ho ut th e req ue st ed st at e ag en cy fil e, be cau se “ he di d no t kn ow

whi ch types of qu es ti on s wou ld be st ex po se th e weak ne ss es in he r te st im on y .” Id

. at

51

. The pl ur al it y di sm is se d hi s arg um en t, sa y in g th at it wou ld in co rrec tl y “ tra ns fo rm

th e Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se in to a co ns ti tu ti on al ly co m pe lle d rule of pr et ria l di sc ov ery. ”

Id

. a t 5 2

. B e c au se “ de fen se co un se l was ab le to cro ss -ex am in e al l of th e tri al

wit ne ss es fu ll y ,” id

. at 54

, th e pl ur al it y ru le d th at th e fai lu re to co m pe l di sc lo su re of

th e ag en cy fil e di d no t vi ol at e th e C o n f r o n t a ti on Cl au se

. The co ur t’s co nc lu si on

,

an te

, at 10

, th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s refu sa l to al lo w th e de fen se acce ss to K.P.’ s m en ta l

he al th reco rd s was a “ li m it at io n o n c ro ss -ex am in at io n” is co nt rary to Rit ch ie

.

The m ajor it y

, an te

, at 9, se em s to be li ev e th at th e reas on in g in Rit ch ie is li m it ed

to a req ue st fo r pr et ri al di sc ov e r y, a n d th at th e Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se do es crea te a

co ns ti tu ti on al ly co m

pe ll ed ru le of in -tr ia l di sc ov ery. Ri t c h i e do es no t su pp or t th at

co nc lu si on

. Of co ur se , t he de fen da nt i n Ri t c h ie wan te d th e ag en cy fil e du rin g tri al

to o; th at is when he wou ld ha ve us ed it

.

The st a t e s u p rem e co ur t in Rit ch ie he ld th at th e de fen da nt was en ti tl ed to

pr et ria l di sc ov ery of th e ag en cy fil e, so th e Su pr em e Co ur t ad dr es se d th at pa rti cu la r

ru li ng

, bu t th e pl ur al it y ’s r a t i o n a le ap pl ie s eq ua ll y to a req ue st fo r co m pe ll ed

-1 4-di sc ov ery du rin g tri al

. The Rit ch ie pl ur al it y ex pl ai ne d th at “ th e rig ht to co nf ro nt at io n

is a tr ia l rig ht

, de si gn ed to pr ev en t im pr op er res tri ct io ns on th e ty pe s of qu es ti on s th at

de fe ns e co un se l may as k du ri ng cr os s- exa min at io n .” 48 0 U.S. at 52 (s eco nd

em ph as is ad de d)

. The op in io n th us co nc lu de d th at “ th e Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se was no t

vi ol at ed by th e wit hh ol d i n g o f th e [ag en cy ] fil e; it on ly wo ul d ha ve be en

imp er mis si bl e

fo r th e ju dg e to ha ve pr even te d Rit ch ie ’s la wye r fr om cr os s- exa min in g

t h e d a u g h t e r .” Id

. at 54 (em ph as is ad de d)

. In li gh t of Rit ch ie

, se ve ral

ci rcu it s— wit ho ut di st in gu is hi ng be twee n pr et ria l an d in -tr ia l di sc ov ery—hav e ru le d

th at th e Co nf

ro nt at io n Cl au se do es no t g u a ran te e a rig ht to co m pe ll ed di sc ov ery.

Uni te d St at es v. Fat ta h

, 91 4 F.3 d 11 2, 17 9 (3 d Ci r. 20 19 ); Uni te d St at es v. Sa rd in as

,

38 6 F. App ’x 92 7, 94 0- 41 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ); Uni te d St at es v. Har gr ov e

, 38 2 F. App ’x

76 5, 77 4- 75 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 10 ); Is aa c v. Gri de r

, No. 98 -6 37 6, 20 00 W L 57 19 59

, at *6

-

7 (6t h Ci r. May 4, 20 00 ); Ta pi a v. Ta ns

y

, 92 6 F.2d 15 54

, 15 59 -6 0 (10 th Ci r. 19 91 );

Uni te d St at es v. Ta ra nt in o

, 84 6 F.2 d 13 84

, 14 15 -1 6 ( D.C. Ci r. 19 88 ) (p er cu ria m ).

The m ajor it y ’s dec is io n c reat es a st ark co nf li ct in th e ci rcu it s.

The di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng s di d no t vi ol at e th e Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se

, an d th ere

is th us no reas on to rem an d fo r an in qu iry in to whe th er a p u rp or te d erro r was

ha rm le ss

. I co nc ur in th e co ur t’s reject io n of Aria s’s ot he r co nt en ti on s in Part s II.A

an d II .B of

th e o pi ni on , and I wou ld affi rm th e jud gm en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 5-