T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A,

P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v . R O B E R T U N D E R W O O D , J R .,

D e f e n d a n t - A p p e lle e . N o. 11- 30312 D . C . N o. 3: 10 -c r- 05 29 3-B H S -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on B e nj a m i n H . S e tt l e , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 5, 2013

S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: F IS H E R , G O U L D an d P A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. T he go vernm entappeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s ordergrant i ng defe nd antR ob ert U nde rw ood J r . ’ s m ot i on t o e xc l ude the a l l e ge d vi c t i m ’ s de pos i t i on t e s t i m ony a nd d is m is s th e o r ig in a l in d ic tm e n t. R e v ie w in g d e n o v o , s e e U ni t e d Stat e s v . L ars on , 495 F . 3d 1094, 1102 ( 2007) ( e n ba nc ) , w e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd. 

# FI LED FEB 12 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

1. T he di stri ctcourtexcl ud ed the w i tness ’ depo si t i on un der our three -par t t e s tf orde t e r m i ni ng w he n r e s tr i c t i ons on c r os s - e xa m i na t i on vi ol a t e the C on fr on t at i on C l ause : (1) w hether the excl ud ed evi dence w as re l evant ; (2) w hether th e r e w e r e o th e rle g itim a te in te r e s ts o u tw e ig h in g th e d e f e n d a n t’s in te r e s t in pr e s e nt i ng the e vi de nc e ; a nd, a s r e l e va nthe r e , ( 3) w he the rthe e xc l us i on of e vi de nc e l e f

tthe j ury w i th s uf

f i c i e nti nf or m a t i on t o a s s e s s the c r e di bi l i ty of the w itn e s s . Se e i d. a t 1 1 0 3 ; U ni t ed Stat es v. B eardslee , 19 7 F . 3d 37 8, 38 3 (9t h C i r. 1 9 9 9 ). T h e co u rtco n cl u d ed th at , w i th o u tth e ab i l i ty t o cro ss-ex am i n e th e w i tn ess re gardi ng evi dence di sc ov er ed af t erthe i ni t i al depo si t i on w as com pl et ed, the j ury la c k e d s u f

f ic ie n t in f o r m a tio n r e g a r d in g th e w itn e s s ’ m e d ic a tio n s , m e n ta l c ap a c ity and m em ory t o ass es s hercr edi bi l i ty. W e r es pect ful l y di sa gree w i th that a s s e s s m e n t. W e a r e pe r s ua de d tha t , e ve n though U nde rw ood i s pr e ve nt e d f r om c o n d u c tin g f

u rth e rc r o s s - e x a m in a tio n , th e ju ry w ill h a v e s u f f ic ie n t in f o r m a tio n to as se ss the w i tness ’ cr edi bi l i ty. T hi s i s s o b ec ause : (1) the i m po rt antevi dence r e ga r di ng the w i tne s s ’ m e di c a t i ons a nd m e nt a l c ondi t i on c a n be pr e s e nt e d t o the j ury thr ough m e a ns othe rtha n c r os s - e xa m i na t i on; a nd ( 2) the e xi s t i ng de pos i t i on te s tim o n y p r o v id e s in f

o r m a tio n o n th e w itn e s s ’ m e n ta l c ap a c ity a n d c r e d ib ility . C f . P erry v. N

ew H a m p sh i re , 132 S . C t . 716, 723 ( 2012) ( “ T he C ons t i tut i on, our3

de c i s i ons i ndi c a t e , pr ot e c t s a de f e nda nta ga i ns ta c onvi c t i on ba s e d on e vi de nc e of que s t i ona bl e r e l i a bi l i ty , notby pr ohi bi t i ng i ntr oduc t i on of the e vi de nc e , butby a f f or di ng the de f

e nda ntm e a ns t o pe r s ua de the j ury tha tthe e vi de nc e s houl d be di sc ou nt ed as un w orthy of cr edi t . ”) . 2 . W e r e j e c tU nde rw ood’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe w i tne s s ’ di r e c tt e s t i m ony m ustbe stri cken un der Mu rdo ch v. C a stro , 60 9 F . 3d 98 3, 99 6 (9t h C i r. 20 10 ) ( en ba nc ) ( S i l ve r m a n, J . , c onc urr i ng) , a nd T o o la t e v. B o rg , 82 8 F . 2d 57 1, 57 2 (9t h C i r. 19 87 ). T hatl i ne of autho ri ty does notappl y bec ause U nd erw oo d h ad an un re stri ct ed op po rtun i ty t o cross -e xam i ne the w i tness re gardi ng her di re ct t est i m o n y. W e hol d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n de t e r m i ni ng tha tpr e s e nt i ng the d e p o s itio n te s tim o n y to th e ju ry w o u ld v io la te th e C o n f r o n ta tio n C la u s e . W e the r e f or e va c a t e the or de re xc l udi ng the w i tne s s ’ t e s t i m ony a nd di s m i s s i ng the ori gi nal i nd i ctm ent . L i ke the di stri ctcourt , w e do n otre ac h U nd erw oo d’ s other a r g u m e n t s f

o re x c l u d i n g th e t e s t i m o n y o rd i s m i s s i n g th e i n d i c tm e n t . No rd o we e xpr e s s a n opi ni on a s t o othe ri s s ue s tha tm a y a r i s e on r e m a nd. V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.