# 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- 10 34

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

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 le e ,

v.

Vale nt in o J am es Bag ol a, al so kn own as Ti no ,

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

an t - Ap pe ll an t

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
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 No rth Dako ta - Farg o

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 2, 2 01 5
Fil ed : Au gu st 6, 2 01 5

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d WHITE, Dis tri ct 1

Ju dg e.

__ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Ro nn ie L. W hi te

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i, s it ti ng by des ig na ti on

.COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Fo ll owi ng a jury tria l, Val en ti no Bag ol a was co nv ic te d of two co un ts of f irs t

de gr ee m ur de r, in v i o l a t i o n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 11 11 (a) an d 11 53

. The di st ric t co ur t 2

se nt en ced Bag ol a to two co nc ur ren t te rm s of li fe im pr is on m en t. On app eal

, Bag ol a
ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t’s jury in st ru ct io ns on fel on y m ur de r an d ch il d ab us e, th e

su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce to co nv ic t hi m , and th e di st ric t co ur t’s res tri ct io n of hi s

cro ss -ex am in at io n o f a wit ne ss . W e affi rm

.

I.

D.S. an d he r br ot he r T.D., m em be rs of th e Sp iri t Lak e Si ou x Trib e, were ni ne

an d si x y ears ol d, res pe ct iv el y , whe n th ey were fo un d de ad on May 21

, 20 11

. Men a
Sh aw, th e ch il dr en ’s m ot he r, fo un d D.S. an d T.D. ob sc ur ed by a bl an ke t in a be dr oo m

at th e h ou se of t he ir f

at he r, Trav is DuBo is

, on th e Sp iri t Lak e Res erv at io n i n No rth

Dak ot a.

D.S., who was fo un d wit ho ut un de rwear or p a n t s , ha d su st ai ne d fo rty st ab

wou nd s. A ba tt ery ha d be en in se rte d in to he r rect um

. T.D. su ffer ed si x t y-si x st ab

wou nd s, in cl ud in g on e th at frac tu red hi s sk ul l an d an ot h e r t ha t m ad e a sh al lo w,

se ve n- cen ti m et er cu t acro ss th e fro nt of hi s ne ck

. Law en fo rcem en t a g e nt s

res po nd in g to th e sc en e reco ve red a kn ife wit h a br ok en ha nd le fro m an in do or tra sh

can , an d a sm al le r kn ife fro m th e tra sh ou td oo rs

. The re was bl oo d on b o t h kn iv es

. Age nt s al so no te d th at a pa rt i a l l y op en ba se m en t win do w pe rm it te d acce ss to th e

DuB oi s re si de nc e.

The Hon or ab le Ral ph R. Eric ks on , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 2

fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta

.

-2

-Sh aw, th e m ot he r, ha d m ov ed ou t of th e DuB oi s res id en ce sh or tl y be fo re D.S.

an d T.D. were m

ur de red

, le av in g th e ch il dr en in th e care of DuB oi s. DuB oi s le ft th e
ho m e aft er Sh aw di sc ov ered th e bo di es of T.D. an d D.S. He was la te r arre st ed fo r

pu bl ic in to xi cat io n. Law en fo rcem en t ag en ts fo cu se d on DuB oi s as a su sp ect in th e

m ur de rs an d in te rv ie wed hi m fo r se ve n ho ur s in th e wak e of th e cri m e. Sev eral da y s

la te r, du rin g a po lygrap h ex am in at io n, DuB oi s de ni ed an y in vo lv eme n t in th e

m ur de rs , bu t th en co nf

es se d afte r th e ex am in at io n th at he ha d com m it te d th e cri m e.

Fo ren si c ev id en ce le d in ve st ig at or s to ch an ge th ei r fo cu s. Bag ol a be cam e th e

m ai n su sp ect aft er la w en fo rcem en t ag en ts di sc ov ered th at DNA fo un d un de r D.S.’ s

fin ge rn ai ls m at ch ed Bag ol a’s. Bag ol a was a co us in of D.S. a nd T.D. He ha d li ve d

wit h Sh aw, DuB oi s, D.S., an d T.D. at th e DuB oi s res id en ce in earl y 20 11

, bu t m ov ed

in to an ot he r ho us e n earb y be fo re t he ch il dr en were m ur de red

. Bag ol a o ccas io na ll y
ba bysat D.S., T.D., an d an ot he r si bl in g, an d he di d so in th e da y s be fo re D.S. an d T.D.

were ki ll ed

. In ve st ig at or s in te rv ie wed Bag ol a, an d he pr ov i d e d de ta il ed or al an d

writ te n c on fes si on s t o t he m ur de rs of D.S. an d T.D. an d t he sex ua l ab us e o f D.S.

A gr an d jury in di c t e d Bag ol a, ch arg in g hi m wit h th e fir st de gr ee m ur de rs of

D.S. an d T.D. As rel ev an t o n a pp eal

, th e m ur de r ch arg es were bas ed on th e fed eral

fel on y -m ur de r la w, whi ch pr ov id es th at a “ m ur de r

. . . co m

m it te d in th e pe rp et rat io n

of

, or at te m pt to pe rp et rat e,

. . . a g g r a v a te d se xu al ab us e[,] se xu al ab us e, [o r] ch il d

ab us e

. . . is m

ur de r in th e fir st de gr ee.” 18 U.S.C. § 11 11 (a). The in di ct m en t al le ge d

th a t Bag ol a co m

m it te d th e m

ur de r of D.S. in th e pe rp et rat io n of an d at te m pt to

pe rp et rat e th e ag gr av at ed se xu al ab us e, se xu al ab us e, an d ch il d ab us e of D.S. As to

th e m ur de r of T.D., th e al le ge d p red ic at e o ffen se was t he ch il d a bu se of T.D.

A jur y f o u nd Bag ol a gu il ty of bo th co un ts of m ur de r ba se d on al l of th e

p r e d i c a te of

fen se s ch arg ed in th e in di ct m en t. The co ur t se nt en ced hi m to li f e

im pr is on m en t, an d B ag ol a n ow ap pe al s t he co nv ic ti on s.

-3

-II.

Bag ol a fi rs t ch al le ng es th e d is tri ct co ur t’s jur y in st ru ct io ns on fel on y

m ur de r

an d ch il d ab us e. Bag ol a di sp ut es Ju ry In st ru ct io ns 5 an d 6, whi ch pr ov id ed th at th e

fo ur th el em en t of fir st de g r e e mu r d e r was th at a ki ll in g was co m m it te d “ du rin g th e

pe rp et rat io n of

, or at te m pt to pe rp et rat e,” sex ua l abu se , ag gr av at ed se xu al ab us e, or
ch il d ab us e of th e vi ct im

. R. Doc

. 19 2, at 6, 9. Bag ol a co nt en ds th at th e in st ru ct io ns

were wro ng to in cl ud e “ ch il d ab us e” as a pr ed ic at e fel on y du rin g whi ch a ki ll in g was

co m m it te d, be cau se th e ch il d ab us e of D.S. an d T.D. “ m erg ed ” wit h th e m ur de rs

. He

in te rp ret s th e fel on y -m

ur de r st at ut e, 18 U.S.C. § 11 11 (a), to m ean th at th e pr ed ic at e
fel on y m us t be “ so m et hi ng ap art fro m th e m ur de r it se lf.” On t hi s vi ew, th e jury

sh ou ld ha ve be en in st ru ct ed th at if th e act th at co ns ti tu te d chi ld ab us e was th e sa m e

act th at cau se d th e vi ct im ’s de at h, th en th e jury co ul d no t con vi ct Bag ol a of m ur de r
ba se d on a pr ed ic at e fel on y of ch il d ab us e. Bag ol a ci te s no au th or it y su pp or ti ng hi s
vi ew th at § 11 11 (a) sh ou ld be co ns tru ed in th is m an ne r, bu t he di rect s us to a di vi de d

de ci si on of th e Io wa Su pr em e Co ur t ap pl y in g hi s pr efer red ru le un de r an Io wa m ur de r

st at ut e. St at e v. Heems tr a , 72 1 N.W.2d 5 49 (Io wa 20 06 ).

The di st ric t co ur t ex pr es se d no vi ew on th e le ga l qu es ti on no w pr es en te d, an d

it is li tt le won de r why no t. Bag ol a pr op os ed th e v e r y i n s t r u ct io n to whi ch he no w
ob jects

. In hi s pr op os ed jury in st ru ct io ns , Bag ol a as ke d th e co ur t to in st ru ct th e jury

th at on e el em en t of th e m ur de r c h a r g es co ul d be sa ti sf ie d by p ro of th at “ th e ki ll in g

was co m m it te d in th e pe rp et rat io n, or at te m pt to pe rp et rat e, ch il d ab us e ” ag ai ns t D.S.

or T.D., res pe ct iv el y

. R. Doc

. 14 7, at 3, 4 (em ph as is ad de d)

. The co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury as Bag ol a req ue st ed , and Bag ol a rai se d n o o bjec ti on

.

“ [A] de fen da nt who req ue st s an d rece iv es a jury in st ru ct io n m ay no t ch al le ng e

th e gi vi ng of th at in st ru ct io n on ap pe al .” Uni te d St at es v. Mar ia no , 72 9 F.3 d 87 4,

88 1 (8t h Cir. 20 13 ). W he re a d efen da nt ha s “ in vi te d” an al le ge d m is ta ke

, th ere can
be no rev ers ib le erro r. Id . at 8 80 -8 1. Acco rd in gl y , we reject Bag ol a’s ch al le ng e to

-4

-th e di st ric t co ur t’s jury in st ru ct io ns on th e fo ur th el em en t of fel on y m ur de r. W e

ex pr es s n o v ie w on Bag ol a’s pr op os ed in te rp ret at io n o f § 1 11 1( a).

Bag ol a al so ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t’s jury in st ru ct io n on th e de fin it io n of

“ ch il d ab us e.” Acco rd in g to th e in st ru ct io n, on e el em en t of c h i l d a b u se is th at th e
de fen da n t “ wil lfu ll y in fli ct ed bo di ly in jury, su bs ta nt ia l bo di ly in jury, or se rio us
bo di ly in jury up on a ch il d.” R. Doc

. 19 0

, a t 19

. Bag ol a sa y s th e in st ru ct io n was

wro ng , be cau se the fe de ra l fel on y -m ur de r st at ut e de fin es ch il d ab us e as “ in te nt io na ll y

or kn owi ng ly cau si ng de at h or se ri ou s bo di ly in ju ry t o a c h i l d.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 11 11 (c)( 3) (em

ph as is ad de d )

. The erro r, he arg ue s, pe rm it te d th e jury to co nv ic t

hi m ba se d o n a fin di ng of “ bo di ly inju ry ” wit ho ut fin di ng “ se rio us bo di ly inju ry .”

It is di ffi cu lt to f

a th om ho w Bag ol a co ul d ha ve be en pr ejud ic ed by th e ci te d

erro r. Co ul d a jury con cei va bl y ha ve fou nd “ bo di ly inju ry ” bu t no t “ se rio us bo di ly

in jury” in a cas e in vo lv in g two de at hs an d at le as t fo rty st ab wou nd s pe r ch il d? Bu t

we ne ed no t ev en an al y ze pr ejud ic e be cau se , ag ai n, Ba g o l a i s i n no po si ti on to

ch al le ng e th e gi vi ng of an in st ru ct io n t ha t h e req ue st ed

. Mar ia no , 72 9 F .3d at 88 0.
Bag ol a’s pr op os ed in st ru ct io n on “ ch il d ab us e” wou ld ha ve req ui red th e go ve rn m en t

to pr ov e th at he “ in fli ct ed

, or al lo wed to be in fli ct ed

, bo di ly in jury, su bs ta nt ia l bo di ly

in jury, or se rio us bo di ly i nju ry .” R. Doc . 1 47 , a t 1 1. Th e co ur t de li ve red pr eci se ly

th e in st ru ct io n t ha t Ba go la req ue st ed . There is no rev ers ib le erro r.

III.

Bag ol a ne xt c o n t e n d s th at th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r th e jury to

co nv ic t h i m o f t h e f

el on y m ur de r of D.S. He as se rts th at no reas on ab le jury co ul d

ha ve fo un d th at he pe rp et rat ed , or a tt em pt ed to pe rp et rat e, th e pr ed ic at e of fen se s of

se x u a l ab us e or ag gr av at ed se xu al ab us e. Thi s arg um en t is pr em is ed on Bag ol a’s

co nt en ti on , ad dr es se d a bo ve , th at th e m ur de r co nv ic ti on can no t be su st ai ne d ba se d

on th e pr ed ic at e of

fen se of ch il d ab us e. As we ha ve reject ed Bag ol a’s ap pe al on th at

-5

-po in t, th e ch al le ng e to th e su ffi ci en cy of ev id en ce to es ta bl is h se xu al ab us e an d

ag gr av at ed se xu al ab us e is ne ces sa ril y fru it le ss

. The co nv ic ti on can be su st ai ne d on

th e gr ou nd th at Bag ol a ki ll ed D.S. du rin g th e pe rp et rat io n of ch il d ab us e. In an y

ev en t, for reas on s di sc us se d bel ow, the re was al so su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r a rat io na l
jury to fin d th at Bag ol a ki ll ed D.S. du rin g th e pe rp et rat io n, or at te m pt ed pe rp et rat io n,

of sex ua l ab us e an d a gg rav at ed sex ua l ab us e.

Sex ua l ab us e co ns is ts of kn owi ng ly cau si ng an ot he r pe rs on t o en ga ge in a

se xu al act by thre at en in g o r pl aci ng th at ot he r pe rs on in fear

. 18 U.S.C. § 2 24 2( 1)

. Agg rav at ed se xu al ab us e is cau si ng th e se xu al act by us in g fo rce ag ai ns t th at pe rs on

or by “ th reat en in g or pl aci ng th at ot he r pe rs on in fear th at an y pe rs on wil l be

su bjec te d to de at h, se rio us bo di ly inju ry , or k id na pp in g.” Id . § 2 24 1( a). A “ se xu al

act ” in cl ud es pe ne tra ti on , ho wev er sl ig ht

, by th e pe ni s of th e an us

. Id

. § 22 46 (2 )(A).
Bag ol a arg ue s th at th e on ly ev id en ce th at he pe rp et rat ed

, or at te m pt ed to pe rp et rat e,

se xu al ab us e or ag gr av at ed se xu al ab us e is hi s st at em en t th a t he “ st art ed to bo ne [D.S.], ” an d th e di sc ov ery of a ba tt ery in D.S.’ s rect um

. He in si st s th at th is ev id en ce

was in su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt t he jury’ s v erd ic t o n t he pre di cat e o ffen se s.

Bag ol a co nf

es se d to rap in g D.S. an al ly. H e s t a te d th at he “ st art ed to bo ne [D.S.], ” an d de fin ed “ bo ne ” as so m e co nt act be twee n hi s pe ni s an d th e ch il d’s an us

. Bag ol a al so ad m it te d th at he pe ne tra te d D.S.’ s an us , res po nd in g affi rm at iv el y whe n

of fic ers as ke d hi m whe th er he was “ ab le to fit [h is ] pe ni s in si de of he r” an d whe th er

hi s “ pe ni s [wa s] har d wh en [he was] st ic ki ng it in he r.”

A co nf es si on m us t be co rro bo rat ed to su pp or t a cri m in al co nv ic ti on , W on g Su n

v. Uni te d St at es , 37 1 U.S. 47 1, 48 8- 89 (1 96 3)

, bu t th ere was su bs ta nt ia l in de pe nd en t

ev id en ce in th is cas e to jus ti fy an in fere nc e th at Bag ol a’s ad m is si on s were tru e. So m e

corro bo rat iv e ev id en ce te nd ed to ve rif y Bag ol a’s ad m is si on of th e cri m in al act s; oth er

ev id en ce fo rti fie d th e tru th of th e co nf es si on m or e ge ne ral ly. Bo th types of ev id en ce

can sa ti sf y th e co rro bo rat io n req ui rem en t. Id

. at 48 9; Uni te d St at es v. Ki rk

, 52 8 F.3 d

-6

-11 02

, 11 11 -1 2 & n.1 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). The de ta il ed na tu re of Bag ol a’s co nf es si on

fu rth er bo ls te rs it s ve raci ty. Rac hl in v. Uni te d St at es , 72 3 F.2 d 13 73

, 13 79 (8 th Ci r.

19 83 ).

Mo st pr om in en t of th e co rro bo rat in g ev id en ce was th e co nd it io n of D.S

. ’ s body

whe n di sc ov ered

. Bag ol a ad m it te d pe ne tra ti ng he r an us

. D.S. was fo un d weari ng no

pa nt s or un de rwear , an d th ere was a ba tt ery lo dg ed in he r rect um

. In ve st ig at or s al so

reco ve red Bag ol a’s DNA fro m un de r D.S.’ s fin ge rn ai ls

, th us co rro bo rat in g Bag ol a’s

ad m is si on th at he th ou gh t D.S. s crat ch ed hi m in an att em

pt to fig ht hi m

off

.

In ve st ig at or s co rro bo rat ed ot he r de ta il s. Bag ol a ad m it te d en te rin g th e DuB oi s

res id en ce “ th ro ug h th e bo tt om win do w;” inv es tig at or s se cu rin g th e cri m e sc en e fo un d

a pa rti al ly op en ba se m en t win do w th at al lo wed en try to th e res id en ce. Bag ol a
ad m it te d in hi s writ te n co nf es si on th at he “ st ab b[ ed T.D.] c o n st an tl y on e aft er

an ot he r,” “ cu t [T.D.’ s] th ro at an d le av e [s ic ] hi m th ere to bl eed ou t,” an d “ st art ed to

st ab [D.S.] on e aft er an ot he r.” T. Tr. Vol

. III, at 3 6 4. A fo ren si c ex am in er

co rro bo rat ed th is acco un t with te st im on y th at T.D. su st ai ne d si xt y -s ix st ab wou nd s,

in cl ud in g a sh al lo w cu t to hi s th ro at th at m eas ur ed se ve n cen ti m et ers , whi le D.S. was

st ab be d fo rty tim es

.

Bag ol a co nf

es se d t ha t h e u se d a bi g k ni fe, t ha t i ts ha nd le bro ke whe n h e was

st ab bi ng on e o f th e ch il dr en , and th at he di sp os ed of t he kn ife in an in do or ga rb ag e

can or ou td oo rs

. In ve st ig at or s reco ve red a br ok en bl oo dy kn ife in th e ki tc he n tra sh

,

an d a sm al le r bl oo dy kn ife in th e tra sh ou td oo rs

. The fo ren si c ex am in er bo ls te red th e

accu racy of Bago la ’s co nf es si on by te st ifyin g th at T.D. su st ai ne d a st ab wou nd th at

frac tu red hi s sk ul l, an d th at it was po ss ib le fo r a kn ife to b r e a k i f it were rem ov ed

aft er be co m in g lo dg ed in a sk ul l. Ano th er fo ren si c ex am in er te st ifi ed th at Bag ol a’s

pa lm pr in t an d T.D.’ s bl oo d were fo un d on a co m pu te r in th e be dr oo m whe re D.S

.

an d T.D. were fo un d.

-7

-The re was am pl e ev id en ce to su pp or t th e jury’ s fin di ng th at Bag ol a ki ll ed D.S.

du rin g th e pe rp et rat io n of se xu al ab us e an d ag gr av at ed se xu al ab us e. His co nf es si on

an d co rro bo rat in g ev id en ce co ul d le ad a rat io na l jury to co nc lu de th at he kn owi ng ly

us ed th reat s an d fo rce to pe ne tra te D.S.’ s an us wit h hi s pe ni s. Acco rd in gl y , Bag ol a’s

co nv ic ti on for m

ur de rin g D.S. n eed no t rest so le ly on t he pre di cat e o ffen se of c hi ld

ab us e. The jury’ s al te rn at iv e fin di ng s th at th e ki ll in g was co m m it te d in th e co ur se of

se xu al ab us e an d ag gr av at ed se xu al ab us e are i n d e p en de nt gr ou nd s to su st ai n th e

co nv ic ti on

.

IV.

Bag ol a ne xt arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n un de r th e ru le s

of ev id en ce an d vi ol at ed hi s rig ht s un de r th e Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se by li m it in g hi s

cro ss -ex am in a t i o n of DuB oi s. Bec au se DuB oi s in it ia ll y co nf es se d to th e m

ur de rs , Bag ol a so ug ht to de m on st rat e reas on ab le do ub t ab ou t wh et he r th e g ov ern m en t was

pr os ecu ti ng th e rig ht m an

. As pa rt of th at st rat eg y , Bag o l a ’s co un se l at te m pt ed to

pr es en t ev id en ce ab ou t wha t ha pp en ed whe n in ve st ig at or s ad m in is te red a po lygrap h

ex am in at io n to DuB oi s. In pa rti cu la r, co un se l tri ed to el ic it fro m DuB oi s th at whe n

DuB oi s de ni ed to th e ex am in er t ha t he st ab be d or cau se d in jury to th e ch il dr en , t he

ex am in er to ld DuB oi s th at he was “ st ro ng ly re a c ti ng ” du rin g th e te st

. The

go ve rn m en t ob

jecte d on th e gr ou n d t h a t th e res ul ts of a po lygrap h ex am in at io n are

in ad m is si b l e , a n d th at DuB oi s’s an swe r ab ou t th e ex am in er’s co m m en t wou ld

di sc lo se a res ul t o f th e ex am in at io n. Th e d is tri ct co ur t s us ta in ed th e o bjec ti on

.

The us e of po lygrap h ev id en ce is di sf av or ed

. Uni te d St at es v. Mon tg ome ry , 63 5 F.3 d 10 74

, 10 94 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). “ [T]here is si m pl y no co ns en su s th at po lygrap h

ev id en ce is rel ia bl e,” Uni te d St at es v. Sc he ff er , 52 3 U.S. 30 3, 30 9 (1 99 8)

, an d, “ [b ]y

it s ve ry na tu re, po lygrap h ev id en ce m ay di m in is h th e jury’ s ro le in m ak in g cred ib il it y
de te rm in at io ns .” Id

. at 31 3 (p lu ral it y op in io n) ; se e Uni te d St at es v. Gia na ko s , 41 5

F.3 d 91 2, 92 4- 25 & n.7 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Fo r th es e reas on s, th e di st ric t co ur t or de red

-8

-be fo re tri al th at whi le Bag ol a co uld el ic it te st im on y ab ou t st at em en ts m ad e by DuB oi s

du rin g th e ex am in at io n, he was fo rb id de n to in tro du ce ev id en ce ab ou t th e res ul ts of

th e ex am in at io n. Co ns is te nt wit h t he pre tri al ord er, t he co ur t ru le d d ur in g t ria l t ha t

ev id en ce of th e ex am in er’s st at em en t th at DuB oi s was “s tro ng ly reac ti ng ” whe n

an swe rin g q ue st io ns ab ou t t he ki ll in gs was i na dm is si bl e.

Bag ol a 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 ex cl ud in g th e

ex am in er’s st at em en t to DuB oi s be cau se th e go ve rn m en t “ op e n e d t h e d oo r” to th is

li ne of in qu iry. “ The do ct rin e of op en in g th e do or al lo ws a pa rty to ex pl or e ot he rwis e

i n a d m is sa bl e ev id en ce on cro ss -ex am in at io n whe n th e op po si ng pa rty ha s m ad e

u n f a i r pr ejud ic ia l us e of rel at ed ev id en ce on di rect ex am in at io n.” Uni te d St at e s v

. Dur ha m , 86 8 F.2 d 10 10

, 10 12 (8 t h C i r. 19 89 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. The ot he rwis e in ad m is si bl e ev id en ce m us t “ cl ari fy or reb ut an is su e o pe ne d u p” by

op po si ng co un se l. Uni te d S ta te s v. Bea so n , 22 0 F .3d 96 4, 9 68 (8t h C ir. 2 00 0)

.

The go ve rn m en t di d no t “ op en th e do or ” to e vi de nc e ab ou t res ul ts of th e

p o lygrap h ex am in at io n. On di rect ex am in at io n, DuB oi s te st ifi ed th at he w a s
ad m in is te red a po lygrap h ex am in at io n, th at he ag reed to su bm it to th e te st be cau se
he was “ no t lying ” an d was th eref or e “ no t a f

r a i d ” o f t h e te st

, an d th at he to ld an

in ve st ig at or aft er th e te st th at he was no t te ll i n g th e tru th du rin g th e po lygrap h

ex am in at io n. The go ve rn m en t di d no t el ic it th e st at em en ts th at DuB oi s m ad e du rin g

th e ex am in at io n. DuB oi s co nt in ue d at tri al by as se rti ng th at h i s p o s t -ex am in at io n

co nf es si on was un tru e an d ex pl ai ni ng th at he m ad e a fal s e c o nf es si on be cau se

in ve st ig at or s pu t wor ds in hi s m ou th du rin g th e le ng th y in te rro ga ti on th at ha d ta ke n pl ace s ev eral da y s b efo re t he po lygrap h.

Thi s tes ti m on y

do es no t co ns ti tu te un fai r pr ejud ic ia l us e of te st im on y rel at ed

to th e res ul ts of t he po lygrap h e xa m in at io n. Th e g ov ern m en t’s q ue st io ni ng st eere d

cl ear of in tro du ci ng th e res ul ts of th e po lygrap h. Bag ol a, no t t h e go ve rn m en t, fir st

el ic it ed fro m DuB oi s on cro ss -ex a mi n a t i o n th at he de ni ed du rin g th e po lygrap h

-9

-ex am in at io n th at he st ab be d D.S. an d T.D. or cau se d an y of th ei r in juri es

. Bag ol a’s

cro ss -ex am in at io n th en tri ed to pl ace t he ex am in er’s i nt erp ret at io n o f hi s re sp on se s
be fo re th e jury, an d th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y ex cl ud e d i t

. Th a t DuB oi s co nf es se d

was im po rta nt ev id en ce, b ut th at he co nf es se d a fte r th e ex am in er’s st at em en t ab ou t

“ st ro ng reac ti on s” ha d m in im al pr ob at iv e va lu e. The di st ric t co ur t was wit hi n it s
di sc ret io n t o co nc lu de th at th e da ng er of co nf us io n an d un fai r pr ejud ic e fro m

in jecti ng th e ex am in er’s in te rp ret at io n of th e po lygrap h su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh ed th e

pr ob at iv e v al ue of t he di sp ut ed tes ti m on y

.

Bag ol a res po nd s th at he was no t at te mp t i n g t o pr es en t ev id en ce of “ res ul ts ,”

be cau se th e qu es ti on di d no t cal l fo r te st im on y ab ou t whe th er th e ex am in er fo un d th at

DuB oi s was de cep t i ve

. Bu t po lygrap h ex am in at io ns m eas ur e a su bjec t’s
ph y si ol og ic al reac ti on s th ro ug h se ns or s at t a c h ed to th e su bjec t an d co nn ect io n to a

m ach in e. “ Res ul ts ” are th e ex am in er’s in te rp ret at io n of da ta reco rd e d by th e

m ach in e. Test im on y th at a su bjec t was “ st ro ng ly reac ti ng ,” li ke te st im on y th at a

su bjec t was “ de cep ti ve ,” cal ls fo r th e ex am in er’s in te rp ret at io n of th e ph y si ol og ic al

res po ns es reg i s te red by th e su bjec t. The di st ric t co ur t pe rm is si bl y de te rm in ed th at
Bag ol a was pre ss in g a di st in ct io n wi th ou t a d iff eren ce.

Bag ol a al so co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng on th e q ue st io n ab ou t

“ st ro ng reac ti on s” vi ol at ed hi s rig ht s un de r th e Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se of th e Si xt h

Am en dm en t. He di d no t rai se th is po in t du rin g tri al , s o we rev i e w t h e c l a i m un de r

th e pl ai n erro r st an da rd

. Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n , 68 8 F.3 d 49 4, 50 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ).

The Si xt h Am en dm en t gu ar a n te es an accu se d an op po rtu ni ty fo r effe ct iv e

cro ss -ex am in at io n, bu t it do es no t en ti tl e hi m to “ cro ss -ex am in at io n th at is effe ct iv e

in wha te ve r way , an d to wha te ve r ex te nt

, th e de fen se m ig ht wis h

. ” Dela wa re v.

Fen st er er , 47 4 U.S. 1 5, 2 0 (1 98 5) (pe r cu ria m ). Dis tri ct co ur ts ret ai n wid e la ti tu de

to im po se reas on ab le li m it s on cro ss -ex am in at io n. D el aw ar e v. Van Ars da ll

, 47 5 U.S.

67 3, 67 9 (1 98 6)

. Bag ol a arg ue s th at th e li m it at io n her e was un reas on ab le

. He sa y s

-1 0-th e jury m ig ht ha ve ev al ua te d DuB oi s’s cred ib il it y di ffer en tl y if it ha d kn own th at

DuB oi s co nf

es se d rig ht aft er th e ex am in er t o l d h i m th at he reac te d st ro ng ly whe n
de nyin g th e m

ur de rs

. Acco rd in g to Bag ol a, th e ex am in er’s c o mm e nt wou ld ha ve

pr ov id ed an ex pl an at io n fo r DuB oi s’s co nf es si on th at di ffer ed fro m DuB oi s’s cl ai m

th at ag en ts “ pu t wor ds in [h is ] m ou th ” du rin g th e i nt erro ga ti on th at pr eced ed th e

po lygrap h.

W e se e no reas on ab le li ke li ho od th at th e di sp ut ed te st im on y wou ld ha ve gi ve n

th e jury a s i g n i f

i c a nt ly di ffer en t im

pr es si on of DuB oi s’s cred ib il it y

. In so far as th e

ex am in er’s co m

m en t in flu en ced DuB oi s to co nf es s, a jury m ay well ha ve vi ewed th e

ev id en ce as co ns is te nt wit h DuB oi s’s cl ai m th at in ve st ig at or s pu t wor ds in hi s m ou th

an d le d hi m to co nf

es s whe n he was real ly in no cen t. The di st ric t co ur t rea s o n ab ly

pe rcei ve d a da ng er , moreo ve r, th at th e jury wou ld fo cu s in st ead on pu rp or te d

“ res ul ts ” of th e po lygrap h ex am in at io n an d gi ve ex ces si ve weig ht to an in fere nc e
dr awn fro m th e ex am in er’s st at em en t. Se e Sc he ff er , 52 3 U.S

. at 31 3- 14 (p lu ral it y

op in io n) ; Gia na ko s , 41 5 F.3 d at 92 4- 25 & n.7

. Bag ol a ha d su ffi ci en t op po rtu ni ty to

rai se do ub ts in ot he r way s ab ou t DuB oi s’s ret ract io n of hi s co nf es si on , so it was no t pl ai n e rro r to ex cl ud e cro ss -ex am in at io n a bo ut th e ex am in er’s co m m en t.

* * *

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

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

-1 1-