# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 4- 20 08

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

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Ro bi n S im s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 13 , 20 14 Fil ed : J an ua ry

14 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BYE, SHEPHERD, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

W he n a li ti ga nt bypas se s a di st ric t co ur t’s di sc ov ery de ad li ne s an d be la te dl y
at te m pt s to in tro du ce ne w ev id en ce, th e co ur t ha s br oa d di sc ret i o n t o fas hi on an
ap pr op ria te rem ed y

. In th is cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e pr op er rem ed y 1

The Hon or ab l e D e a n W hi pp le , Un it ed St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.was ex cl ud in g th e la te ev id en ce. Rev ie win g un d e r 1 8 U.S.C. § 37 31 , we co nc lu de

th at de ci si on di d n ot ex ceed th e co ur t’s d is cret io n, an d we a ffi rm th e jud gm en t.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

In Ju ne 20 13
, Ro bi n Si m s was arre st ed an d ch arg ed wit h, am on g ot he r th in gs , be in g a fel on i n po ss es si on of a fir earm in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). On Aug us t 21
, 20 13
, a m ag is tra te jud ge or de red th at th e go ve rn m en t di sc lo se al l ex pe rt
te st im on y to Si m s by Apr il 10
, 20 14
, se ve n da y s be fo re th e fin al pr et ria l co nf eren ce. Tria l was set for Apri l 2 8, 2 01 4, 1 8 d ay s af te r th e d is cl os ur e d at e.

Im m ed ia te ly aft er arre st in g Si m s, po li ce of fic ers se nt a gu n se iz ed fro m hi m to

a cri m e la b in Kan sa s Ci ty, Mi ss ou ri, fo r DNA te st in g. An an al y st at th e la b, ho wev er, m is ta ke nl y be li ev ed th at th e la b di d no t ha ve a DNA sa m pl e fro m Si m s on fil e, so sh e co ul d no t co m pa re hi s DNA t o th e DNA fou nd on th e g un . The an al y st

e-m ai le d a de te ct iv e an d in fo rm ed hi m th at sh e co ul d no t m ak e th e co m pa ris on , bu t th e de te ct iv e di d no t res po nd

. Nor di d th e an al y st he ar fro m th e fed eral pr os ecu to rs

as si gn ed to Sim s’s ca se

.

Mea nwh il e, Si m s an d th e go ve rn m en t ha d be en di sc us si ng a po te nt ia l pl ea, an d th e di sc ov ery d ead li ne fo r ex pe rt t e s t im on y pa ss ed

. On Apr il 14 , 2 01 4, two week s be fo re th e tri al da te , Si m s’s la wy er to ld th e go ve rn m en t th at Si m s ha d de ci de d no t to pl ead gu il ty an d ha d, in st ead
, op te d fo r tri al

. It was on ly t h e n t h a t th e go ve rn m en t

co nt act ed th e cri m e la b an d req ue st ed in fo rm at io n ab ou t th e st at us of th e te st s on th e DNA ta ke n fro m th e gu n. The la b th en lo cat ed a DNA sa m pl e fro m Si m s th at it ha d al l al on g, an d th e go ve rn m en t req ue st ed ex pe di te d te st in g. The go ve rn m en t di d no t
te ll th e co ur t or Si m s th at it was awai ti ng DNA ev id en ce, d i d n ot up da te it s

ex pe rt- wit ne ss l i s t, an d to ld th e co ur t at th e Apr il 17 pr et ria l co nf eren ce th at it was

“ de fin it el y

read y for tri al .”

-2

-O n A p r i l 2 1
, on e week be fo re th e tri al was to be gi n, th e la b se nt th e

go ve r n men t a r e po rt, whi ch st at ed th at Si m s was th e so ur ce of “ th e m ajor it y of th e DNA on th e gu n” an d th at th e ch an ces of so m eo ne el se ha v i n g t h e sa m e ge ne ti c
pa tt ern as S im s was “ on e in 64 qu in ti ll io n.”

The ne xt da y , Apr il 22
, th e go ve rn m en t se nt Si m s’s at to rn ey a co py of th e la b

r e po rt an d th e na m e an d cred en ti al s of th e ex pe rt wit ne ss th e go ve rn m en t w o u l d
p r e s e n t at th e tri al

. The go ve rn m en t al so fil ed a “ Su pp le m en ta l Not ic e of Ex p e r t W it ne ss es ” th at di sc lo se d th e ne w DNA ex pe rt wit ne ss

. The sa m e da y , Si m s m ov ed

to ex cl ud e th e DNA ev id en ce be cau se o f t he la te no ti ce an d arg ue d th at th e
go ve rn m en t sh ou ld ha ve req ue st ed th e la b res ul ts so m et im e in t h e pr eced in g ei gh t

m on th s in st ead of wait in g un ti l th e week be fo re tri al

. Si m s as se rte d th at he was
pr ejud ic ed by th e la te di sc lo su re be cau se he ha d no ti m e to rev ie w th e ev id en ce fro m th e go ve rn m en t, pr ep are qu es ti on s fo r cro ss ex am in at io n of th e ne w wit ne ss , or hi re hi s o wn ex pe rt t o re vi ew th e n ew ev id en ce.

On Ap ril 24 , t he go ve rn m en t re sp on de d b y m ov in g t o c on ti nu e th e tr ia l u nt il
Ju ne 9, 20 14
, a da te wit hi n Sim s’s sp eed y -tr ia l dead li ne , to gi ve hi m ti m e to rev ie w th e ne w ev id en ce. The sa m e da y , th e go ve rn m en t al so fil ed a se co nd su pp le m en ta ry

no ti ce of ex pe rt wit ne ss es , na m in g two ad di ti on al fo ren si c sp eci al is ts fro m th e DNA la b i n Kan sa s C it y

.

The di st ric t co ur t he ld a pr et ria l co nf eren ce on Apr il 25 , 2 01 4, du r i n g whi ch th e pa rti es di sc us se d Si m s’s m ot io n to ex cl ud e th e DNA ev id en ce. Si m s arg ue d th at th e go ve rn m en t was a t f a ul t fo r fai li ng to co nt act th e la b un ti l aft er th e Apr il 10 de ad li ne to di sc lo se ex p e r t w i t n es se s. Eve n wit h th e rep or t di sc lo se d, Si m s ad de d, th e go ve rn m en t ha d no t tu rn ed ov er th e ex pe rt’s no te s, so he co ul d no t kn ow th e ba si s fo r th e ex pe rt’s op in io n. Si m s no te d th e da m ag in g na tu re of th e ex pe rt’s repo rt and
arg ue d th at a c o n t i n u a nc e was an in su ffi ci en t rem ed y

. The go ve rn m en t res po nd ed

-3

-th at it ha d di sc lo se d th e ev id en ce as so on as it rece iv ed th e rep or t an d in si st ed th at a

co nt in ua nc e was a “ pe rfec t al te rn at iv e rem ed y ” to ex cl us io n o f th e ev id en ce.

The di st ric t co ur t su st ai ne d th e m ot io n an d ex cl ud ed th e te st im on y

. The co ur t

no te d t ha t, al th ou gh th e d el ay st em m ed fro m th e la b, t he go ve rn m en t was us in g t he la b, “ an d i f th ey

can ’t d o th ei r wor k, th en y ou pa y th e co ns eq ue nc es .” Beca us e th e
go ve rn m en t had fai le d t o c he ck on th e DNA tes ti ng , whi ch be ga n i n th e su m m er of
20 13
, th e co ur t ru le d th at th e go ve rn m en t al so was res po ns ib le fo r th e de la y

. Had th e
go ve rn m en t act ed di li ge nt ly, th e co ur t ex pl ai ne d, “ an y co nf us io n ab ou t a sa m

pl e fro m Defen da nt ” pr om

pt ly wou ld ha ve be en res ol ve d. The co ur t ru le d th at th e go ve rn m en t th us act ed wit h reck le ss di sr eg ard fo r th e ex pe rt de ad li ne

. The co ur t al so de te rm in ed th at th e e v i d e n c e wou ld cau se “ ex tre m e pr ejud ic e” to Si m s, an d th at it was

“ un co ns ci on ab le ” fo r th e go ve rn m en t to in tro du ce th e ev id en ce on ly da y s be fo re th e tri al

. The co ur t reject ed th e go ve rn m en t’s pr op os al fo r le ss er sa nc ti on s, co nc lu di ng th at ex cl us io n “ is th e on ly way to rem ed y th e pr ejud ic e” to Si m s “ an d to de te r fu tu re di sc ov ery vi ol at io ns .” The g ov ern m en t re qu es te d a n i nt erl oc ut or y ap pe al

.

II . Dis cus si on

On ap pe al th e g ov ern m en t m ai nt ai ns th at th e d is tri ct co ur t’s ex cl us io n o f th e DNA ev id en ce was to o har sh a sa nc ti on an d ass ert s th at th e co ur t s ho ul d h av e u se d

“ th e le as t se ve re sa nc ti on whi ch wil l ad eq ua te ly p un is h th e go ve rn m en t an d se cu re fu tu re co m

pl ia nc e.” Uni te d St at es v. DeCo te au , 18 6 F.3 d 10 08
, 10 10 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ). The go ve rn men t in si st s th at a co nt in ua nc e was an ad eq ua te rem ed y be cau se Si m s

wou ld ha ve ha d ti m e to rev ie w th e ev id en ce, hir e an ex pe rt o f hi s o wn, an d p rep are fo r cro ss ex am in at io n, and be cau se co nt in ui ng th e tri al wou ld no t h av e ru n afo ul of Si m s’s ri gh t t o a sp eed y

tri al

.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws th e di st ric t co ur t’s im po si ti on of sa nc ti on s, an d th e co ur t’s ch oi ce of sa nc ti on , fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Po lk
, 71 5 F.3 d 23 8, 24 9

-4

-(8 th C i r

. 2 0 1 3 )

. A d is tri ct co ur t ha s br oa d di sc ret io n to sa nc ti on a pa rty fo r fai lu re

to co m pl y wit h di sc ov ery or de rs

. See Uni te d St at es v. Dav is
, 24 4 F.3 d 66 6, 67 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ); Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 16 ( d ) ( 2 )(C) (p ro vi di ng fo r ex cl us io n of ev id en ce no t d i s c l o se d pu rs ua nt to di sc ov ery or de r). W he n rev ie win g whe th er th e sa nc ti o n imp o s e d e vi nc es an ab us e of di sc ret io n, we lo ok at th ree fact or s: 1) th e reas on , or

reas on s, fo r th e de la y in pr od uc ti on of th e ev id en ce, in cl ud in g w h e t h e r t he
go ve rn m en t act ed in ba d fai th ; 2) whe th er th e de fen da nt was pr ejud ic ed ; an d 3) whe th er a l e s s er sa nc ti on wou ld se cu re fu tu re co m pl ia nc e by th e go ve rn m en t. See Un it ed Sta te s v . Am ay a, 75 0 F .3d 72 1, 7 27 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4)

.

W it h th os e pr in ci pl es in m in d, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n. Fi rs t, th e di st ric t co ur t co n c l u d ed th at th e go ve rn m en t ha d act ed in reck le ss di sr eg ard of t he di sc ov ery de ad li ne by fail in g to ch eck on th e DNA res ul ts wit h th e la b. Thi s fin di ng is su pp or te d by th e u n d i s p u t e d fact th at th e go ve rn m en t in fo rm ed th e co ur t at th e Apr il 17
, 20 14
, pr et ria l co nf eren ce th at it was “ de fin it el y read y fo r tri al ,” th ou gh it was awai ti ng th e DNA res u l t s

. A d d in g to th at , th e
go ve rn m en t fil ed a se co nd su pp le m en ta l no ti ce, aft er Si m s ha d m ov ed to ex cl ud e th e DNA ev id en ce, at te m

pt in g to ad d m or e ex pe rt wit ne ss es

. Tha t no ti ce was fil ed on ly f o u r da y s be fo re th e tri al was se t to be gi n an d a fu ll two week s aft er t h e A p r i l 1 0 de ad li ne

. The se act io ns co nf irm th e di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si on th at th e go ve rn m en t sh owe d m or e th an jus t n eg li ge nc e in m is si ng th e d is co ve ry de ad li ne

.

W e al so ag ree th at Si m s was pr e ju di ced by th e la te di sc lo su re. The DNA

ev id en ce wou ld ha ve pl ay ed a ke y pa rt in Si m s’s pr os ecu ti on on th e fir earm ch arg e. By wit hh ol di ng th at ev id en ce, th e go ve rn m en t m ad e it im po ss ib le fo r Si m s to rev ie w th e ne w DNA ev id en ce, pr ep are fo r cro s s e x a m in at io n, an d hi re hi s own ex pe rt wit ne ss to reb ut th e co nc lu si on s m ad e b y th e g ov ern m en t’s ex pe rt b efo re t ria l.

Alt ho ug h it is po ss ib le
, as th e go ve rn m en t su gg es ts , th at a co nt in ua nc e wou ld ha ve al le vi at ed so m e of th e pr ejud ic e to Si m s, th e di st ric t co ur t reas on ab ly co nc lu de d

-5

-th at a le ss er sa nc ti on wou ld no t “ se cu re fu tu re co m pl ia nc e” wi t h c o u rt or de rs

. See Tay lo r v. Ill in oi s, 48 4 U.S. 40 0, 41 3 (1 98 8) (“ It m ay well be tru e th at al te rn at iv e

sa nc ti on s are ad eq ua te an d ap pr op ria te in m os t cas es , bu t it is eq ua ll y cl ear th at th ey

wou ld be le ss effe ct iv e th an th e pr ecl us io n sa nc ti on

. . . .”). Tho ug h th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ha ve to rem ed y th e si tu at io n by ex cl ud in g th e ev id en ce an d co u l d ha ve im po se d an al te rn at iv e sa nc ti on , th e co ur t ha d di sc ret io n to im po se th e sa nc ti on it di d.
See Dav is
, 24 4 F.3 d at 67 3 (co nc lu di ng th at di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by ex cl ud in g ev id en ce, rat h e r t h an gr an ti ng a co nt in ua nc e, be cau se ex cl us io n was

“ th e le as t se ve re sa nc ti on li ke ly to rem ed y th e pr ejud ic e an d de te r fu tu re wro ng do in g

on th e pa rt of th e go ve rn m en t” ); Uni te d St at es v. W ic ke r, 84 8 F.2 d 10 59
, 10 61 (1 0t h Ci r. 19 88 ) (n ot in g ne ed in so m e cas es fo r di st ric t co ur t to ex cl ud e ev id en ce “ to

m ai nt ai n th e in te gr it y an d sc he du le of th e co ur t” ); Uni te d St at es v. Cam pa gn uo lo
, 59 2
F

. 2 d 8 5 2, 85 8 (5 th Ci r. 19 79 ) (fi nd in g no ab us e of di sc ret io n whe re di st ric t co ur t

su pp res se d ev i de nc e th at go ve rn m en t fai le d to di sc lo se in vi ol at io n of di sc ov ery

or de r). The di st ric t cou rt’s d eci si on to im po se th e ha rs he r sa nc ti on in th is cas e was

no t an ab us e o f th at bro ad di sc ret io n.

II I. Co ncl us io n

W e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

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

-6

-