## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

____________ N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. R ONAL D M I K OS, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.

____________ A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our tfo r the NorthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 02 C R 137

—Ronal d A . G uzmán, Ju dge
.

____________ A RG UE D A UGUS T 16, 2007

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 25, 2008

____________
Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd P OSNERa nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e . M edi car e doe s no t co ver th e c os ts of r o u tin e m ed ica l p ro c ed u re s. R on ald M iko s, a podiat ri st, per f or m ed nothi ng but ro uti ne pro cedures, s u c h as trim m in g t h e t oe n ails of p eo p le u n ab le t o c lip th eir ow n. Yet he bil led M ed icare forthou san d s of su rgeri es. W hen offi ci al s be cam e suspici ous, M i kos ar ra nged f or som e o fhi s e l derl y pa tie nts ( m any o fwh om were not2 N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421

m ental l y c om petent) to s ubm i t a ffi davi ts sta ti ng tha t su rgeries ha d ind eed occu rred (thou gh at trial M ik o s’s secret ary of sev e n ye ars testifi ed that he h ad nev er pe rf or m ed a s i ngl e s urge ryduri ng her t i m e in hi s e m plo y, an d m ed ica l s p ec ialis ts w h o e x am in ed th es e p eo p le f ound no si gns of surg er y)
. Other pati ents w er e le ss obl i gi ng, so M i kos wrote affi davi ts f orthem and had thei r si gn at u res for ged. A gr and j ury i ssued subpoenas to se ve n o fM i kos ’ s pati ents. H e v i si ted the m , tr yi ng to diss uade each fro m te sti fyi ng. N one appe ar ed to te sti fy

— w hetherbec ause ofM i kos ’ s per suasi venes s o r be ca us e o fthe i r o wn m en ta l a nd phy si cal l i m i ta ti o ns , the r ec o r d d oes no t sh o w. Butwe k no w w hy o ne o fthe seven d id n ot show up
. J oy ce Br annon, wh o by then was coo perat i ng w i th the i nvest i gat or s, had been s hot si x ti m es at close range
. A ft e r c onc lud ing tha t M ikos had slai n h er, the j ur y s e nt enc e d h i m t o de a th. S e e 1 8 U. S
. C. §1512(a) ( 1) ( A )
. I t a l so convi cted hi m o fo thercr i m es, i ncl ud i ng fra ud , o bstr uct ion ofj usti ce, at tem pti ng to i nfl ue nc e a g r a nd j ur y, a nd wi tne s s t a mpe r i ng . 1 8 U. S
. C. §§ 134 1, 1347, 1503, 1505, 1512 (b)( 1). T he eviden ce of frau d and w itness tam p ering is overw he l mi nga nd e s s e nt i a l l y u nc o nt e s t e d, tho ugh a di s pu te abou t the am ou nt of lo s s requ ires som e atten tion later. The evi dence ofm urder al so i s s tr ong. B r a n n o n h a d r e t i r e d fr o m h e rj o b a s a n u r s e t o b e c o me the s ecr eta ryo f a church, w here she l i ved i n the base m ent. The l ac ko fs he l l c as i ng s l ed po l i ce to co nc l ude tha t th e k i l ler h ad u se d a re vo lve r. T h e b u llet s w er e .22 lon g rifle ri m - fi re , br ass - coa ted r ounds w i th so l i d ro und n os es,N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 3

concav e ba ses , and m ulti ple knurl ed cannel ures . Each bul l e t h a d b e e n fi r e d fr o m a b a r r e l wi th e i g h t l a n d s an d gr oo ves; the ri fl i ng had a ri ght- hand twis t. M i kos o w ned a g un that coul d h av e fired those bul l ets
. T he police knew this beca us e, th r e e w eeks be fore Brannon’ s m urder, t h ey h ad been cal l ed to the house of Shi rl ey K i ng, o ne ofM i ko s’ s g i rl fri ends, and dis cove re d that M i kos ke pt m ult i ple fi re ar m s in K i ng’ s r esi dence. W he n M ikos could not p rod uc e a cu rrent firearm ow ne r’s i d e n t i fi c a t i o n c a r d , th e p o l i c e t o o k a wa y th e g uns a nd am m unit i on, giv i ng M i ko s a detai l ed i nventory. A fter re new i ng hi s ca rd, M i kos r etr i eve d t h e guns and tr ansfer re d them to hi s s tor age u ni t a t a st and-al one f aci l i ty. Aft erthe murde r, po l i ce s ea r ch ed the uni t an d f o und ev er yt h in g on th e in ve n to ry , d ow n t o t h e las t b u ll et

— except fora . 22 cal iberH erber t S chm i dt re vol ver that fi re d l ong ri fl e a m m unit i on. A se ar ch ofM iko s’ s ca r turned up a box ofRem i ngto n . 22 l ong ri fl e r i m - fi re , br ass co at ed r o unds wi ths o l i d ro und no se s, co nc av e ba se s, a nd m ulti pl e k nur l ed ca nne l ur es . Twen tys he l l s wer e m i ss i ng fr o m the b o x. The S ch m i dt r ev o l ve r was nev erf o und. The carco ntai ned one s pent cas in g w ith a m ar k m ade bya hem i s ph e r e - s ha pe d fi r i ngp i n. A S c hmi dt
. 2 2 r e v o l v er w ou ld h ave left such a m ark (an u nu su al one). One mem be r o fthe c hur ch ’ s s ta ffsa w M i k o s ( o r s o m eo ne w ho look e d l ik e him ) at th e ch urc h a w eek before B ran non ’s m urd er. Th e w itn ess d escribed the intru d er’s ha i r a s g r ay, whi chM i k o s’ s was no t, b ut whens ea r ch i ng hi s car the pol i ce found a bo ttl e o fgr ay hai r col or i ng. That car also cont ained han d w ritten d e tails of the ch urc h’s4 N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421

sc h ed u le

— d et ails th at rev ea le d w h en a p er so n co u ld enterBrannon’ s a partm ent without be i ng se en. Data on h i s s ma r tp h o ne s h o we d th a th e h a d b e e n t r y i n gs y s t e mati cal l y t o conta ct a l l of hi s pati ents w ho had bee n subpoena ed t o pro vi de r ec o r ds o r te st i m o ny i n the i nv es ti g at i o n. Recor ds showed thathe pl aced and r ec eive d cal l s that went th r o ug h ce l l to wer s ne ar Br anno n’ s ch ur cha t appr o xi m at ely the t i m e th athe was ide nt i fi ed as b eingthe r e th e w eekbefor e th e m urder, and aga i n one and tw o days bef or e the m urder. A j ury coul d concl ud e th at he had been w atchi ng to fi nd the ri ght o pp ortu n i ty to sl i p i nto Brannon’ s a partm ent. H e had a m oti ve to w an t Bra nnon si l enced, and she ( unli ke m any otherp ati ents) had re si ste d h i s e f for ts atp er su as ion . H e o w n ed a w ea p on th at co u ld have done the j ob, and the gu n’s di sappeara nce i s r evealing. M o t ive , opp ortu nity, and abil ity al low ed a j ury to fi nd thatM i kos killed Brannon t o preve nt herfro m te st i fy i ng

— and that i s a capi talcr i m e.
I 1. F e d e r a l a g e n t s e n t e r e d Mi k o s ’ s s t o r a g e u n i t o n t he author i ty ofa “sneak and peek ” warr ant. Thi s k i nd o f wa r r a ntp e r mi t s i ns pe c t i o n b utn o ts e i z ur e . S e e 1 8 U. S
. C. §3 10 3a
. La ck ofs ei zu r e ex pl ains the “ pee k ” par t o fthe nam e; the “snea k” part com es fro m the f act that age nts need not noti fy the o w ner unti l l ate r. S uch w ar ra nts ar e des i g ne d t o pe r m i t ani nv es ti g at i o n wi th o utt i ppi ng offthe suspect. Age nt s who ex ec ut ed th e sn ea k

- an d- pee kwar r an t f o und so m any fi re ar m s, and so m uch am m unit i on , t hat theyN os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 5

co ul d no t l ea r n w ha t was the r e wi th o utr emov i ngthe g uns and a mm o fr o m the s t o r a g e un i t a nd s pr e a di ng the m o n the g ro und i m m edi ate l y o utsi de the door, wh er e they could be photog ra phed
. The ag ents al so deci ded that th er e w as no poi nt i n defe rr i ng the se i zure , so o ne o f thei r num berwas dis patched to o btain a re gul arwarra nt. I t i ssued swiftl y, and approxi m ate l y four hours after ar r i vinga t th e st o r ag e uni t th e ag en ts e xe cu ted the re gul arwar ra n t an d haule d aw ay the guns and am m o. W hi l e w aiting f orthatwarra nt, ag ents had test ed sev er al of the w eap ons to see w he th er they w orked ( th ey d id). M i k o s co nt en ds th atthe ev idenc e se i ze d fr o m the sto ra ge u n i t s houl d have be en suppress ed, bec ause by m o vings o m e o fthe g uns o ut si de and test i ngthe m the age nts e ffec ted a “se i zure ” that the warra nt di d not au th orize. W e m ay assu m e t ha t a seizure occ urred , cf. Bond v. U nited Sta tes , 5 29 U. S. 3 34 ( 20 00 ) ( fee l i nga n o paque bag to gain inform ation a b o u t its conten ts); Ar izona v. H i cks , 48 0 U
. S. 321 (19 87) (tur ni ng aud i o gearoverto r ead its se ria l n u m b er ), bu t u se of th e e x c lu sio n ar y ru le w ou ld be unw ar ranted. Fi rs t, the §310 3a w ar ra nt autho ri zed the a gents to ente r and i nspect the s tor age l ock er, and by m ovin g an d te sting the guns age nts di d not ca use M i kos any di stinct inj ury; se cond, a sei zure was i nevi tabl e o nce th e agen ts saw M ik o s ’s arsena l. A prem atu re seizure does not l ead to e xcl usi on o fev i dence w hen a w ar ra nt, author i zi ng ev er ythi ng that o ccurr ed, was cer tain to i ssue. Se e, e.g ., Nix v . Wi l l i a ms , 467 U
. S. 431 (1984); U nited Sta tes v. Te j ada , 524 F.3d 809 ( 7th Cir. 2008). C f. H ud so n v. M ichi

gan , 5 47U. S
. 5 86 ( 20 06 ) ( ex cl usi o n unj us ti fi ed when th e error i s not in th e cau sal chain l ead ing to th e evide nc e).6 N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 H er e th e st eps t o o bt ai n a r egul arwar r an t wer e be g un a lm ost as soon as the age nt s saw the trove and w ere ongo i ng wh en t he te st- fi rings o ccurr ed; the fully a uthori zed se i zure to ok pla ce withi n hours
. S u p p re ssi on o f th i s ev i den ce , s ei ze d wi thb o thpr o babl e ca us e an d j udi ci ala utho r i za ti o n, woul d b e a wi ndf al l th at th e f o ur th a men dme ntdo e s n o tc o mm a nd
. 2. M i kos co ntends thatthe pros ecutor viol ate d the fi fth am en dm en t’ s se l f

- i nc r i m i na ti o n c l au se b y a sk i ngthe j ury to i nfe r gui l t fro m the f act that the S chm i dt re vo lve r w as m i ssing. H e char acte ri zes thi s l i ne o f a rg u m ent a s a n i m perm i ssibl e co m m ent o n hi s f ai l ure to tes ti fy. S ee G ri ff in v. Ca li

forni a , 38 0 U.S
. 60 9 ( 1965 )
. W he th er M i kos tes ti fi ed w as not re l evantto the i nfe re nc e th e pr ose cutor pr o po se d, how ev er ; i t woul d ha ve b ee n e qua l l y s tr o ng ha d M i k o s tr i ed to e xpl ain the g un’ s di sa ppea r an ce b ut l eft the j ury unconvi nc ed . It i s e nti re l y a pp ro pri ate to dr a w a n i nfe r e nc e f ro m the f a c t s tha t( a ) Mi k o s o wne d a parti cul arweapon, (b) t h e w eapon co uld have i nfl i cted th e f at al wounds , an d ( c) th e wea po n va ni sh ed at abo ut th e ti m e o fthe murder, e ve n tho ug h o th erwea po ns kn ow n to h av e b ee n in t h e sa m e p lac e a re ac c ou n te d for. It i s these f acts , and not M i kos ’ s deci si on t o re m ai n si l ent, th at su p p or t a n infe re n c e u n fa vo ra b le t o h im . N ot h in g in G ri ff in o r i ts succes sor s pre vents a pros ecuto r fro m urging the j ury to draw i nfe re nces fro m ev ents that can be establ i sh ed bye vi den ce i nde pen den t o fthe a cc us ed’ s si l ence. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rob i ns on , 485 U
. S. 25 (1988); U nite d State s v. Sble ndorio , 830 F.2d 1382, 1391–9 2 (7th C ir. 1987 ).N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 7 M i kos fi nd s s i gni fi cance i n th e prose cutor ’ s s tat em ents to the j ury that “the onl y possibl e expla nati on f orth is gu n be in g m iss in g is b e c au se [M iko s] d oe sn ’t w an t it bro ught i n her e” and that M i kos wa s pl aying a “ga m e o f hi de-a nd

- go- see k”. H e cha ra cter i zed thes e s tat em ents a s e ff o r t s t o h o l d h i s s i l e n c e a g a i n s th i m. We r e a d th e m, h ow ev er , as e ffor ts to h old h is conductag ains t hi m . Hi di ng a gun i s conduct, not ( l ack of ) speech. Drawing i nfe re nces fro m t h e d efe n d an t’s (m is)c on d u c t is w h at a tr ial is a ll about. 3. T he p ow er of th e inferenc e from th e gun ’s disap p earan ce de pen ded o n p roof th ati t co ul d ha ve fi r ed th e bul l et s th atk i l l ed Br anno n. Pa ulT an gr en, a n F BIa g en t w ho speci al i zes in fi re ar m s’ ri fl i ng and bal l i sti cs, te sti fi ed as an exper t that the gun’ s s er i alnum berr eve al ed i t t o be a “De puty Co m bo ” m o del, and tha t a dat ab as e o fwea po ns m aint aine d b y the F BIs ho ws tha t ba r r el s o fHerbe rt Schm i dt Depu ty M ar shalm odel s hav e ei ght g ro ove s w i th a ri ght- hand twis t, m atching the b ull ets thatki l l ed Brannon. Tangr en al so tes ti fi ed that the Deputy Com bo an d D ep u ty M a r s h al g u n s a re p h ys ica lly id en tic al; on ly the t r a de n a me di ffe r s . He r e t r i eve d a He rb e r tS c hmi dt Dep uty M ar shal re vol verfro m the FBI ’ s a rm or y, fi re d i t, an d ver i fi e d th a tth e b a r r e l h a d e i g h tg r o o v e s a n d a r i g ht tw i st. Mi k o s i ns i s t s tha th i s g unwa s a “ M o de l 2 1 ” r a the r th ana “ Deputy Co m bo ” o r “ Deputy M ar sh al ” an d tha t th e H erber t S chm i dt M odel21 has on ly six g ro ove s. Tangr en tes ti fied , ho w eve r, thatthe ser i alnum berco uld have b ee n as sig n ed on ly to a “D ep u ty C om b o” m od el. M i kos co ntends thatthe dist ri ct j u d ge sho uld nothave al l o wed the a g en t to de l i ve r a ny o fthi s testim o ny . The8 N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421

a g e ntwa s n o tqua l i fi e d a s a n e xp e rtu nd e r F e d. R
. Ev i d. 702, M i kos m ai ntai ns, because ther e i s no scho l ar l y l i ter ature o n the ri fl i ng of g u n b ar re l s, and the FBI ’ s database i s inaccurat e ( oratl eas t incom ple te ). Publ i cati on i s no t a s i neq ua non o fexper t t est i m ony, se e D auber t v . M erre ll D ow Phar m ac euti ca l s , Inc . , 5 09 U. S
. 5 79 , 5 93 ( 19 93 ) , a nd w hetherthe gun w as a “ Dep uty Com bo” ora “M odel21 ” is a factu al qu estion on w hich the d istri ct j ud ge’s fi nd i ng s m u st sta nd unl ess cl ear l y e rr oneo us, wh i ch they ar e no t. ( The j ur y ha d t o de ci de i n the e nd whe th erthe m i ssing g un w as a m odelthatwould have produced bul l et s wi the ight gro o ve s; we spe akhe r e o nl y o fthe di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s p r e l i mi na r y fi nd i ng s tha tde t e r mi ne a dm issibil ity. See Fed
. R. Evid
. 104(a); U nite d State s v. M arti

nez de O rt iz , 907F.2d 62 9 (7 th C ir. 19 90 ) (en ba n c ).) Di st r i ctj udg es may a dm i t te st i m o ny r es tingo n “ sc i en ti fi c , t e c hn i c a l o r o the r wi s e s pe c i a l i z e d kno wl e dg e ” tha t wi l l a ss i stthe trier of f ac t. F ed. R. Ev i d. 7 02
. Te st i m o ny base d on the FBI ’ s rifl i ng datab ase m ay not have been “sci enti fi c”, bu t itwas both “te chnic al ” a nd “s peci al i zed”. Ru le 70 2 does not condi ti on a dm i ssibi l i ty on the st ate o f the publ i shed l i te ra ture , o r a co m ple te and fl aw - fre e s et ofdata, but on these cri ter i a: [ A ] wi tne s s qua l i fi e d a s a n e xp e r tb y kno wl e dge , skil l, exp erience , training, or edu cation, m ay tes ti fy th er et o in th e fo rm of an op in i on or ot h er w ise , i f ( 1) the tes ti m ony i s ba sed upon suffi ci ent f acts o r d at a, (2) th e tes tim on y i s th e pr od u c t o fr elia b le pri nci ple s a nd m etho ds, and ( 3) the w i tn ess has appl i ed th e pr i nc i pl es a nd metho ds r el i ab l y to the f acts o fthe case .N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 9 The dis tr i ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that th ese r equi re m ents had been sat i sfi ed

— that the FBI ’ s r i fl i ng data w er e “ suffi ci ent” an d th at th e w itn es s h as ap p lied “re liab le . .
. m et h od s” in a r el i abl e f ashi on. A pp el l ate revi ew i s defer enti al, se e G enera l E lectric C o . v. Join er, 52 2 U. S
. 13 6 ( 19 97 ) , an d the dist ri ct cou rt di d not abuse i ts disc re ti on. Tangr en not o nl y l o o k ed up the co nt en t o fthe ri fl i ngdat ab as e ( l ea r ni ng th at1 6 m o dels c oul d ha ve pr o duce d the s o r t o fr i fl i ng observ ed on th e bu lle ts) but also teste d the d atab ase’s conte nts b y fi rin g a Herber t S chm i dt Depu ty M ar shal re vol ver, wh i ch pro du ced bul l ets with e i gh t gro ove s and a r i ght tw i st. The on ly p u rp ose o fthe exer ci se w as to l ea r n whe th erM i k o s’ s r ev o l ver co ul d ha ve b ee n the m urder w eapon; the FBI ag ent c andidl y d iscl ose d that at l eas t 1 5 o therm odel s a l so coul d have fi re d those b ul l e t s . ( “ Atl e a st” bec a us e the da t ab a s e do e s n o ti nc l ud e eve rym ake and m odelo fgun e verso l d.) A databa se that does not i ncl ud e eve ry w eapon eve r m ade ca n pro du ce f al se negat i ves

— that i s, a gun thatact u al l y fi re d the b ull ets m ay have been om i tte d fro m the databas e

—but no t f al se po si ti ve s, pr o vi ded th atthe i nformat i o n abo ut the guns actual l y t est ed has b een r eco rded accur ate l y. M i k o s conten d s th at“ th e pr ac ti ce o fmatc hi ngs pen t b u llet s t o a m ak e a n d m o d el gu n ” d oe s n otsa tis fy R u le 70 2, b utthe e xpe r t di d no t te st i fy tha t bul l et s wi ths uch

and-such r i fl i ng m ust hav e com e fro m a parti cul ar m odelo fg un, l e ta l o ne fr o m a s pe c i fi c we a po n. That woul d i nd ee d o ve r st at e whati s to b e l ea r ne d fr o m the datab as e. S ee A dina Schwartz, A Sy s t e m i c Chal l e nget o the R el iabi li ty and Ad m is si bil ity of Firearm s and To olm ark Ide ntifica t i on , 6 Colu m . Sci. & Tec h. L. Rev. 2 ( 2005 ). Tan gren ’s10 N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 tes ti m ony re l i abl y a pp l i ed t h e d ata f orthe pu rpos e o f say i ng tha t the r i fl i ng o n the bul l ets di d notr ul eou ta H erber t S chm i dt Depu ty Com bo re vol ver . That t est i m ony, ev enwi ths o l i m i te d a f o r ce , was rele va ntunde r F ed. R. Evid. 40 1 (M i kos l i kel y would have bee n acqui tte d had the datab as e sh own thatnone ofhi s guns coul d have been used to ki l l B ra n non) , and re l i abl e g i ven i ts l i m i tatio n s. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtd id n otab u s e it s d isc re tio n in denyi ng M i kos ’ s r equest to excl ud e the ev i dence un d er Fed. R. Evi d. 403 as und ulyprej ud i ci al
. The j ury w as enti tl ed to hearTangr en’ s e vi dence. 4. Ha v i n g a l l o we d T a n g r e n t o t e s t i fy, Mi k o s i n s i s ts , t he j ud ge shoul d have g ra nted hi s m oti on t o hi re bal l i sti cs ex p ert Dav i d La M agna a t publ i c ex pen se . Bo ththe Co nsti tuti on, se e A k ev . Ok l a h o ma , 4 70 U
. S. 6 8 (1 98 5) , a nd the C rim in al Ju st ice A c t, se e 1 8 U .S.C . § 3 0 06 A (e)(1 ), en tit le de fen d an ts to the s er vi ces ofexper ts necess ar y t o m eet th e p ro se c u tio n ’s c as e. T h e p roj ec te d ex p en se to ret ain LaMag na , at $ 250 a n h o ur, woul d ha ve e xc ee ded th e presum pti ve cei l i ng f oran e xpert’ s s er vi ces ( $7, 500, se e 18 U. S
. C. § 35 99 ( g ) ( 2) , s i nc e th i s i s a ca pi tal c ase) , a nd the dist ri ct c ourtto l d M i ko s that he w oul d app ro ve anothe r bal l i sti cs e xpert w hose rate s w er e lo w er, o r w hose tr av el t im e w ou ld h av e b ee n les s. (E x p er ts b ill for th eir tr avel ; that ’ s o ne r eas on wh y L aM agna’ s t ota lfees w oul d have ex ceeded the cap. ) M i kos as ked the co urt to let him hire J ohn R. N ixon i n li eu of L aM agn a. T he cou rt g av e i ts pe r m i ss i o n. Ni xo n e xa m i ne d the b ull et s an d p rep ared a report

—b u t th e d efense did notput N i xon on the s tand oruse hi s r epor t a s e vi dence. ( I t di d profferan unr ea so ne d s ta te m en t by N ixon tha t “the r e ca n b e noN os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 11 guar anty ofco nsi ste ncy of l and & gr oo ve m eas urem ents between c ri m e l abor ato ri es” and that “suspect data [ ther ef or e] m ust h av e fo und i ts w ay i nto” the F BI’ s data

ba se , b utthe se a ss er ti o ns di d no t r es po nd t o a ny i ss ue i n the case

— an d, g iv enthe abs en ce o fr ea so ni ng, the st at em en t w as n otad m iss ible .) M i ko s’ s a pp el l ate ar gum ent that the di str i ct j ud ge shoul d ha ve le t hi m hi re LaM agna i s a dud
. A bstr act propos i ti ons about enti tl em en t to expertas si sta nce g o no wher e when th e defen dan thadan e xpert. M i kos does not tel l us what LaM agna coul d have done that N i xon w as unabl e to do ; f o r tha t m at te r, he do es no t te l l us why he did notuse N ix on a s a n expert
. N i xon co uld have relie d not on ly on h is ow n w ork bu t also on La M agn a’s pu bl i shed w or k, wh i ch cr i ti ques usi ng ba l l i stic s d ata to m ake uni que m atches o fbu l l ets to guns ( som ethi ng tha t, to re p ea t, T an gr en d id n otd o). Se e Jo an G riffin & D av id LaM agna, D auber t C halle nges to Fo re nsi c Evidence: Ba ll is ti cs Nexton theFi r i ng Li ne, 26 C ha m p ion 20 (Sept./Oc t. 2 0 0 2 ). Ch am pio n, a gl oss y pu bl i cati on fo r the defense bar, i s no t exactl y a scho l ar l y j ournal, and thi s s hor t a rt icle w as not re fer eed, but an exper t s ti l l co uld have r el i ed on i t t o th e ex te nttha t i t co nt aine d us efuli nf o r m at i o n abo utthe FBI ’ s r i fl i ng- chara cter i sti cs database
. S ee Fed. R. Evi d. 703. F o r a l l we kn o w, N i xo n e nde d up a g r ee i ngwi thTa ng r en, and perhaps LaM agna w oul d hav e done so too. N ei ther the Const i tuti on northe C rim i nal J usti ce Act enti tl es a defe nd ant t o the b est( orm ostexpensi ve) exper t, o r to m ore t ha n o ne e xpe r t i fthe fi r stdo es no t r ea cha c o nc l usi o n f av o r ab l e to the de fen se . J us t as a d efe nda ntwho12 N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421

re l i es on co unselatpubli c expense m u st acc ept a com petent l aw yer, r atherthan Clar ence Darr ow, see M or r i s v. Sl appy, 46 1 U.S . 1 (1 983), so a defe nd ant who re l i es on pu bl i c fund s forexper t a ssi sta nce m u st be s ati sfi ed w i th a co m petent expert
. M i ko s doe s no t a rg u e that Nixon w as i ncom petent ( orev en be low a ve ra ge) , so he ha s re cei ved hi s due. 5. M i kos wanted a j ury- sel ecti on e xpert as w ell as a bal l i sti cs e xpert. The di str i ct j ud ge tu rned hi m dow n fl at on thi s seco nd re quest, obs er vi ng that the Cri m i nal J usti ce A ct a nd §3 599 ( 21 U .S.C . §848( q) unti l i ts re codi fi cati on i n 2 00 6) pro vi de f o r expe r ts on i ss ue s th ata ffec t g ui l t an d se nt en cing . As f ar as we ca n te l l, no di st r i ct court (and c er ta in l y no co urt ofappeal s) has hel d that there i s a sta tutory o r const i tuti onalenti tl em en t t o a j ury- sel ecti on expertatpubli c expense. The Consti tuti on e nti tl es eve rydefendant to a fai r tr i al before an unbi ase d j ury. The functi on o fa j ury- sel ecti on ex p ert, how ever, i s to bias th e j ury i n his em p loyer’ s favor. W hetherthi s i s a g e nu i ne fi e l d o fe xp e r t i s e i s o pe n to doubt; som e s tudie s co ncl ud e that peo ple wh o use j urysel ecti on e xperts do no b ett er (a n d m ay do w or se) than thos e who do not
. S ee M i chaelO. Finkel ste i n & Bruce Lev i n, C lea r C ho ices a nd G uessw o rk in P erem pto ry C ha lleng es in Fe deral Crim inal Trials , 16 0 J. R oya l S tat i sti calS oci etyA 2 7 5 ( 1 9 9 7 ) ; Ha ns Z e i s e l & S ha riS e i dma n Di a mon d, The Ef f e c to f Pe r e mpt ory Cha l l e n ge s on J u ry an d Ve r di c t : An E xp erim ent in a F e d e r a l D istrict C o urt, 30 S tan. L. Rev. 49 1 ( 1978 )
. N o m atter. There i s no r i ght t o an exper t whose goa l i s t o produce j uror s who f avor one si de, and w hoseN os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 13 l ea ni ng s ( do ubt l es s sl i g ht , or th eywoul d no t ta k e ex perti se to fe rreto ut) ar e undetect abl e t o the o thersi de, a nd thu s wi l l n ot l e a d t o c ha l l e ng e s f o r c a us e o r p e r e mptory s tr i kes
. Perhaps one coul d pu t a bet terf ace on th is and say that the g o a l o fa j ur y - s e l e c t i o n e xp e r ti s t o fi nd a nd e xpos e tho s e s ub t l e si gns o fb i a s i n the v e ni r e tha tmi g hte l ud e co uns el( an d the di st rict j udg e) unl es s det ec te d i n a sci enti fi c m anner. I fa pr ose cutorr eta i ns a j ury- sel ecti on expert, a defe nd ant m i ght b e abl e t o show the nee d fo r on e to l eve l the pla yi ng fi el d. Bu t the pro secuto r did not use a j ury- sel ecti on e xpert i n thi s ca se, and M i kos was not entit led t o one. That co uld o nl y l ead to an a rm s r ace, an d a r a c e t o in tr od u c e c on c ea lab le b ias es int o jur ies is n ot o ne thatsho uld be waged. S ee M i l l e r - El v
. D r e t ke, 54 5 U. S
. 2 31 , 2 66 –7 3 ( 20 05 ) ( Br ey er, J
. , c o nc ur r i ng ); B at s on v. Ken tuc ky, 476 U
. S. 79, 102– 03 (1986) (M arsh all, J
. , conc urring). 6. One fi nal i ssue bef or e we tur n to the s entence s. M i kos su bmi ts tha t th e ev i den ce was i ns uffi ci en t to s uppo r t th e j ury’ s ver dictthathe m urdere d Brannon. N o one saw him do it; the g u n w as no t foun d ; the kill er l eft no fi ng erpri nts. A nd wh at w as hi s m oti ve?, co unseli nquir es. True, M i k o s want ed to s ta y o uto fj ai l f o r M edi ca r e fr au d, b ut hi s l awy ero bs er ve s th atM i k o s had subm i tt ed bo g us cl ai m s on b eh alf o fso m any pati ents that he co uld not po ss ibl y ha ve tho ug httha t h e cou l d s i l en ce the m a l l
. But he di dn ’ t nee d to. I t would have bee n enough t o si l ence the pat i ents w hose ev i dence or te stim ony had been sought
. M i kos se t o ut to d o j u st that

—by persuas i on, by14 N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421

s ub mi t t i ngf o r g e d a ffi da v i t s i n the p a t i e nt s ’ n a mes , a nd , th e j ury coul d concl ud e, byki l l i ng the o ne m enta lly c om p et en t p at ien t w h o h ad m ad e itcle ar th atsh e w ou ld ass i st the pr ose cutor s. M i kos m ay h ave been del ud ed ( or desperat e) i n thi nki ng tha t, i f h e coul d preventan i ni t i a l ba t c h o fpa t i e nt s f r o m pr o du c i ngev i de nc e o ffr a ud , th en the inve stigation w ou ld be ca ll ed off

— f o r, b y th e t i me the g ra nd j ury sta rt ed i ssui ng subpoe nas, a ge nts had i nspected hi s bo oks and concl ud ed thatall o fhi s bi l l s had been f abr i cate d

—buta s l o nga s M i k o s th o ug httha t he c o ul d d i v e r tthe i nv e s t i g a t o r s t o e a s i e r t a r g e t s h e h a d a m oti ve. As f o rthe lacko fwi tn es se s an d fi ng er pr i nt s: The o pen i ngpa r ag r aph s o fthi s o pi ni o n s aya l l tha t i s ne ce ss ar y . The evi dence, though ci rcum sta nti al, i s dam ni ng. A lternati ve ex p lanation s, su ch as a burglary th at w en t aw ry, are i m pl au sibl e; no th i ngwas t ak enf r o m ( o r ev endi sturbe d i n) Brannon’ s apart m ent. J uror s l ear ned that M i kos had bee n pu rcha si ng g uns i n quanti ty; ag ents f ound not o nl y a st o r ag e uni t ful l o f wea po ns but al so m o r e gu ns i n the c eilin g t iles of h is h om e, an d st ill m or e h id d en u n d er h is ra fte rs . A se n sib le j u ry c ou ld fin d b ey o n d a r ea so n ab le doubt tha tMi k o s s ho tBr a nn o n i n c o l d b l o o d, wi th pr eme d i t a t i o n, t o p r e v e n th e rfr o m t e s t i fy i n ga g a i n s th i m.
II 1. On the 24 non- capi tal convi cti ons, M i kos recei ved sente nces of60 m onths’ im p risonm ent o n each of 15 c o un t s , a nd 7 8 mon ths ’ i mpr i s o nme nt o n e a c h ofthe 9 r emai ni ngc ou nt s. Al l 2 4 se nt en ce s r un c o nc ur r en tly a ndN os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 15 i nc l ude r es ti tu ti o n o f $1
. 8 m i l l i o n. M i k o s co nt en ds th atthe d istri ct cou rt overestim ated the M ed icare program ’s fi na nc i all oss an d a s a r es ul t se t th e i m pr i so nm en t an d r es ti tu ti o n t o o hi g h. D u rin g s en te n c in g, M iko s’s law y e r co n c ed ed th at h is to ta l bills t o th e M e d ica re p ro gr am w er e a p p ro x im at ely $1. 8 m i l l i on. Thi s l ed to a 16- l eve l i ncre ase i n hi s o ffense sco re und er U
. S. S. G. §2B1. 1( b) ( 1) ( I ) ( ra nge fro m $1 m i l l i on to $2. 5 m i l l i on)
. That co n c es sion i s no t di sposi ti ve, M i kos n ow co n te n d s, b ec au se M ed ica re m igh t n oth av e p aid all of t h es e c laim s, an d so m e o f th em m ay h av e b ee n le git im ate
. W h et h er M edi car e pai d i s i rr el evantto the l oss cal cul ati on under § 2B1. 1, however , bec ause that sect i on deal s with inten ded l oss . M iko s bi l l ed the M edi car e pr ogr am f or$1
. 8 m i lli on; that ’ s the i ntended lo ss w hether M edi car e pai d ornot

— un le s s som e of th e claim s w ere l eg i ti m at e. Butthe evi den ce s ho ws tha t no t o ne pe nny w as payable. M iko s’s a p p ell ate l aw yer co nfuse s l egi ti m ate services with l egi ti m ate c l a i ms . M i kos doubtl ess provi ded hi s pati ents w i th m any ser vi ces, such as r em ovi ng i ngro w n to enai l s, but none o fthes e r outi ne se rv i ces is covered by the M ed icare program
. H e bil led M ed icare f o r po di atr i c su r g ery, a nd the r ec o r d s ho ws tha t he neverper f or m ed any surg er y. Thus al l o fthe cl ai m s for paym ent fro m t h e M edi car e pr ogr am were i l l egi ti m ate an d the i nt en ded l o ss was $ 1. 8 m i l l i o n. Resti tuti on i s a di ffer en t m att er . I t depends on a ctual ra th er t h an in te n d ed lo ss . Se e, e.g ., U nited Sta tes v. Webber, N o. 07

- 2117( 7th Ci r. J uly29 , 20 08) , sl i p op. 30 –38; U nited State s v. C aputo , 517 F .3 d 9 3 5, 943 (7th Cir. 2008); U nited16 N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 St at e s v. Ge orge, 403 F.3d 47 0, 47 4 (7th C ir. 20 05 ). I t s h ou ld have b e e n a s i mpl e mat t e r f o r the pr o s e c ut i o n t o show how m uch the M edi car e pr ogr am actual l y pai d on M i k o s’ s cl ai m s, b uttha t ev i den ce i s no t i n the r ec o r d. The bur deno fs ho wi ngl o ss i s o n the p rosecu to r, s o the aw ar d ofres tit uti on i s v acat ed and m ust be r ecal cul ate d o n r e man d. 2. A ccor ding to M i kos , the Feder alDeath Penal ty A ct, 18 U
. S. C. §§ 3591 –98, is unconsti tuti onalbecause i t v i ol ate s th e I nd ictm en t C lau se of the fi fth am en d m en t (the A ttorney Gener al, n ot a g ra nd j ury, deter m i nes whether to se ekc api tal p uni sh m en t f o ra qua l i fy i ngo ffen se , a nd the statute doe s no t r equi re ag gr avat i ng f acto rs to be i nc l ude d i n a n indi ct m en t) , b ecau se f ai l ur e to a ppl y the F ede r alRul es o fEv i den ce a nd us e o fhe ar sa y i n s en te nc i ng viol ate th e d ue proc ess clau se, an d b e c au se th e statu tory agg ra vating f acto rs a re i ncom prehensibl e. These thre e ar gu m en ts ag ain st th e s ta tu te h a v e b e en m ad e in th is c irc u it, an d in o th er s, to n o a va il. The Indi ct m en t Cl au se a r g um en t ha s be enmade an d rej ec te d inUn i t e d S t a t e s v . R o b i ns on , 3 67 F. 3d 278, 29 0 ( 5th C ir. 2004); U ni t e d St at e s v. A llen , 40 6 F
. 3d 940, 94 9 ( 8th Ci r . 2 00 5) ( enb an c) ; a nd Uni t e d S t at e s v. Brown , 44 1 F
. 3d 1330 , 13 67 ( 11th Cir
. 20 06)
. T h e ar gum ent about evi dence h as be en m ad e a n d rejec te d in m an y c irc u its
. S ee , e.g., U nited Sta tes v. C o rley, 519 F. 3d 716, 723– 27 (7th C ir. 2008); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fu l ks , 4 54 F
. 3d 41 0, 43 8 ( 4th Ci r . 2 00 6)
. The S u p re m e C ou rth eld inWillia m s v. New Yo rk, 3 3 7U
. S. 24 1 ( 1949 ) , that the Consti tuti on does notr equi re appli cati on o f th e r ul es o fe vi den ce i n cap ita l s en te nc i ng, a nd i n a l l theN os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 17 fer m ent about capi talpun ishm ent in the yea rs since then the Courthas neversugg est ed any i ncl i na ti on t o ov er ru le Wi l l i a ms . S ee Wiggins v. Sm ith , 53 9 U.S
. 51 0, 53 6–37 (2 00 3)
. The v ague ne ss a r g um en t ha s be enmade an d r eje c te d inU nited Sta tes v. Webster, 1 6 2 F
. 3 d 3 0 8 , 3 5 4 ( 5 th Cir
. 19 98 ), a m ong othe rs . A fterJon es v. U nited Sta tes , 52 7 U
. S. 37 3 (1 999) , r ej ecte d a functi onal l y i denti calvagueness cha l l e ng e , the r e i s no r o o m fo r man e uv e r . W e r e l y o n th es e dec i si o ns a nd see n o c o ns ti tu ti o na l r ea so n why M i kos cannotbe sente nced to death f orhi s pre m edi tat ed m urder ofa w i tness
. O n l y th e i n d i c t me n tqu e s t i o n c a l l s f o r e v e n b r i e fc o mm ent. Wal t on v. Ar izona , 49 7 U.S
. 63 9 ( 19 90 ) , hel d that agg ra vating f acto rs thatm ake a perso n el i gibl e forcapi tal pu ni s hme nta r e s e nt e nc i ngc o ns i de r a t i o ns tha tn e e d n ot be a l l ege d i n an i nd ict m en t. The Fe deralDeath Penal ty Act, e na c t e d in 1 9 9 4 , a s s ume d t hat Wa l t on i s co r r ec t an d do es no t r equi r e ag g r av at i ng f ac to r s to appe ar i n the i nd i ctm ent. B u t in 2002 the Suprem e Cour t o ver rul ed Wal t on and hel d that a ggr avat i ng f acto rs t h at m ake a cri m e death-e l i gibl e (though nottho se used i n a l ate r bal anci ng pro cedure, se e U nite d State s v. Fel l , 2008 U
. S. A p p . L EXIS 1383 1 at * 105– 11 ( 2d Cir
. J une 27, 20 08) ( col l ecti ng ca ses ) ) m u st b e cha rg ed i n the i nd i ctm ent. S ee Ri ng v. Arizona , 53 6 U.S
. 58 4 ( 2002 ) , a deci si on m uch i nfl uenced by A p p rend i v. New Jersey, 5 3 0 U. S
. 4 6 6 ( 2 0 0 0 )
. T he i nd i ctm en t o f M iko s in c lu d es se ve ra l ag gr av at in g f ac to rs . A ll re quir em ents ofRi nga nd Appre ndih a v e b e e n s a t i s fi e d. N onethel ess , M i kos i nsi sts thatthe st atute m ust be decl ar ed unconsti tuti onalbec ause itdo es notde m an d18 N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 that the g ra nd j ury fi nd the agg ra vating f ac to rs. H e then conte nd s that the st atute i s no t s eve rabl e, so that t o fin d on e con st itu tio n al fl aw is to kn oc k ou t t h e b as is of a ll ca pi ta l puni sh m en t. The a r g um en t g o es wro nga t th e fi rs t ste p ( and we need not deci de w hetherthe seve rabi l i ty ste p i s wrong as w el l ) , bec ause Ringdoes nothol d or im p ly th at an y p ar t o f th e F ed er al D e a t h P en alt y A c t is u n c on st itu tio n al. Rin g d oe s say th at th e C on st itu tio n d em an d s t h at ce rt ain thi n gs be i n an i nd i ctm ent i fa capi talse ntence i s t o be val i d, bu t the federa l st atute does notfor bida g g r av at i ng factors in an ind ictm en t. I t is sil en t on w he th er they are i ncl ud e d. I fthe i nd i ctm ent c om pli es w i thRi ng, no c o ns ti tu
ti onaler ro r occur s. There is nothi ng to sever
. A s lo ng as a defe nd ant’ s r i ghts und erRi ngare h o n o red ( as M ikos’s w er e) , i t i s a m at te r ofi nd i ffer ence w hetherthe ri ghts w er e ho nor ed as a m att ero fstatuto ryco m m and orpro secut o r i a l p r e c a u t i o n . We h a v e h e l d mu c h th e s a me thi ng f or21 U
. S. C. §8 41 . Defendants ar gued afterAppre ndi th at §841 is un con stitut ional bec au se it d oes no t re qu ire drug qu an ti ti es to be c harg ed i n i nd i ctm ents. W e hel d, to the c ontr ar y, that§8 41 i s s i l ent o n the su b j ec t, and that pros ecuto rs ar e fre e t o i ncl ud e a l l a lleg ati ons needed to com plywithAppre ndi
. Pu tting in th e in d ictm en t m ore th an t he st atuto ryfl oo r does not i m plythatany l aw is unconsti tuti onal
. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Br ough , 24 3 F
. 3d 1078 (7th C ir. 2001). C f. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cot t on , 53 5 U.S
. 62 5 (2002). J ust so w i th the FederalD eath Penal ty A ct. T i tl e 1 8 s ays whatm ust be proved, and so m eti m es i t s ays how; othe rN os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 19

sour ces, i ncl ud i ng the Consti tuti on, the Fed er alRule s o f C r i m i n al P ro c ed u re , an d th e c om m on law , ad d d et ails about w hi ch ta sks f al l to pros ecuto rs , j ud ges , gr and j uri es, an d pe ti t j ur i es . Tha t o ne s o urce of l aw i s si l en t o n a proce du ra l iss u e, such as w hat a n i nd i ctm ent m ust c o nt a i n, j us tl e a v e s i tt o a no the r s o ur c e . Lo o ka t1 8 U. S
. C. §13 47, the M edi car e- fra ud st atute thatM i kos has been convi cted o fvi ol ating. There i s no t a peep in §1347( or al m o sta ny o th ers ta tu te ) abo ut w ha t m us t be i n a n indi ct m en t, but no o ne woul d sa y th at th i s m akes the w hol e Cri m i nal Code a ro l l i cki ng vi ol ati on o fthe I nd i ctm en t Cl au se . Othe r s o ur ce s o fl aw s uppl y d et ai l s ab o ut w hat i nd i ctm ents ( and otherl ega l docum ents) co ntai n, so tha tde fe nd a nt s ’ c o ns t i t ut i o na l r i g ht s a r e ful l y r e s pe c t e d. 3. Th e F ed eral Dea th Pen alty A ct p rovide s tha t, ifa defen dan t i s co nv i ct ed o fa c api ta l c r i m e an d the pr o se cutor r eque s t s the de a th pe na l t y, a j ur y mus t de c i de a t a se nt en cingpr o ce edingwh eth erthe a cc us ed ha d the nece ss ar y ment als ta te a nd a t l ea sto ne a g g r av at i ng f acto r exi sts
. I fthe j ury unanim ousl y a nsw er s bo th o f these questi ons i n the affi rm ati ve, see §359 3( d), it m u st bal ance a l l co nsi derat i ons to deter m i n e w hethercapi tal pu ni shm ent i s a pp ro pri ate
. W e cal l thes e “ consi derat i ons” rath er than “factors” bec au se, althou gh th ere is a statu tory l i sto f“ f ac to r s” tha t a j ury m ustco nsi der ( i fr ai sed bya p ar ty ), t h e r e is n o lim it t o th e n u m b er of ca se -sp ec ific ( “non- sta tutory”) co nsi derat i ons thatm ayi nfl uence a j ury. The tw o st atuto ryag gr avat i ng f acto rs were that M i kos su bsta nt ial ly p lann ed and prem ed itated the m u r d er, §3 59 2(c )(9) , an d th at B ra n n on w as “ p ar tic u lar ly v u ln er ab le20 N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 due t o . . . i nfi r mi t y ” , § 3 5 9 2 ( c ) ( 1 1 )
. Br a nn o n ha d r eti re d fr o m nur singb ec au se s he ha d b ec o m e so o be se tha t sh e needed assi stance to r i se fro m a chai r. ( She had other co ndi ti o ns c o m m o nl y a ss o ci at ed w ith obe si ty
. ) S he co ul d no t ha ve r un a way o r r es i st ed ani nt r ude r . The j u ry fou n d bo th of th es e a gg ra va tin g fa c to rs u n an im ou sly an d b ey o nd a r ea so nabl e do ubt
. I t a l so f o und thr ee no nsta tutory a ggr avat i ng co nsi derati ons. One w as that M i k o s k i l l ed Br anno n to pr ev en t he r from t es ti fy i ng a g a i ns th i m. T he s e c o nd wa s tha tthe c r i me c a us e d l oss to B ran non ’s friend s, fam il y, an d co-w orkers. T he third w as th at M iko s h ad n otd em on st ra te d rem or se for h is cr i m es . Al l o fthe se w er e f o und una ni m o us l y, a nd b ey o nd a r eas onabl e doubt. M i kos as ke d th e jur y t o fin d 33 m itig at in g c on sid er atio ns. Several of th ese d rew m aj ority sup p ort. E ight m e m b e rs ofthe j ury concl ud ed, f orexam ple , that“Ronal d M i kos has a l oving r el ati onshi p w i th hi s s on, R onal d M i kos , Jr. ”; ni ne j uror s co ncl ud ed that M i kos ’ s e xecuti on would cau se his son “great p ain an d em o t io n a l d istress.” ( A m aj or i ty did notm ake si m i l arfi n d in gs f orM i kos ’ s o ther chi l dren. ) A singl e j urorc on c l ud ed that M i kos ’ s s ubsta nce abuse had l ed to m ental diso rder s that w er e m i ti gat
i ng( he s ub mi t t e d e v i de nc e tha t he b e g a n ab us i ngp r e s c r i pt i o n p a i n k i l l e r s i n th e mi d 1 9 9 0 s a n d b e g a n d r i n k i ng h ea vily in 2 0 0 1 .) T w o jur or s c on c lu d ed th at th e c ivil i nvest i gat i ons i nto M i ko s’s fr aud had cause d him st re ss and l ed to d rug and al coholabuse , wh i ch w as a m it i g at i ngc o ns i der at i o n. F i ve j ur o r s co nc l ude d tha t th e del ay i n com ple ti ng the ci vi l i nvest i gat i on was aN os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 21

m i ti gat i ng co nsi derat i on. But onl y fou r j uror s s up port ed th e s ta te m en t: “R on ald M iko s is a h u m an be in g.” A fterm aking al l o f these fi nd i ngs, the j uror s v ote d unanim ousl y that M i kos be executed f or ki l l in g Jo yce Br anno n. M i kos co ntest s tw o ofthe fi ve agg ra vating f acto rs o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s : v u l n e r ab l e v i c t i m a n d l a c ko f r e mo r s e . We b e g i n w i th the f i r s to fth e s e , b e c a u s e i ti s o n e o fth e t wo st atut o r y ag g r av at i ngf ac to r s tha t the j ur y f o und. ( The no nst at u to r y a gg ra va tin g c irc u m st an c es are les s im p or ta n t.) The pros ecu to r conte nd s that s om e o fM i kos ’ s a rgum ents on se n te n c in g h av e b ee n forfe ite d be c au se co u n se l d id not m ake the appropri ate o bj ecti on a t the appropr i ate ti m e, but w e co nsi der a l l o fthe appell ate ar gum ents on th e m er i ts l es t we s ee the m ag ain i n the gui se ofa c o nt en tio n th at M iko s re c eiv ed ine ffec tiv e as sis ta n c e o f co u n se l, d esp ite the d il igent w ork don e on h is behalf.
a. M i kos m i ght perhaps have ar gued that si x w el l

- pla ced b u llet s w ill kill an yo n e, s o v u ln er ab ility ca n n otbe in i ssue, but he does notta ke that l i ne. B ra nnon w as vul nera bl e, notbec ause she w as especi al l y s usceptibl e t o bul l ets , butb ec au se s he was i m m o bi l e an d c o ul d nei th err un norfi ght b ack w hen an intruder br oke i nto her apart m ent. N orco uld s he seek hel p i n w hatev erper i od ofco nsci ousn es s re m ain ed to h er aft er th e i n tr u d er h ad em p tie d h is gu n into h er back an d n eck, p ierci ng h er lu ng s a nd severi ng her car oti d a rt ery. B oth U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sa m ps on , 48 6 F
. 3d 13 , 4 8–49 ( 1s t Ci r . 2 00 7) , a nd U nited Sta t e s v. Paul, 217 F. 3d 989, 10 01–0 2 ( 8th Ci r. 20 00) , hol d that di sabi l i ti es m akin g it h ar d fo r the v i cti m to r esi st orfl ee supp or t a vu lnerable-victim find ing un d er §3592 (c)( 11).22 N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 O u r d iss en tin g colle ag u e ass er ts th at B ra n n on ’s d isa b iliti es a r e i r r e l e v a n tb e c a u s e “ [ s ] h e c o u l d n o th a v e o ut r un [M ikos’s] bu ll ets even i f sh e had been an O lym p ic sprinte r” ( diss ent a t 3 1) and that herd oo m w as seal ed once “he was sta nd i ng be hi nd her ” ( id
. at30 )
. M i kos hi m sel fd oes not c on te n d th is

— n ot i n t h e d ist ric t c ou rt, an d n otin t h is cour t. Our co l l eague’ s pos i ti on i gn or es eve ry thi ng tha t occur re d bef or e M i kos was sta nd i ng i nches fro m Brannon with a l oaded r evo l ver . I fM i kos h ad ki l l ed Br anno n wi th a sn i perr i fl e fr o m a cr o ss the s tr ee t, a nd the fi r s t s i g n o f the a t t a c k ha d b e e n a b ul l e t i n he r head, then her disabi l i ty w oul d i nd eed be i m m ate ri al. But M i kos i nstea d enter ed herapar tm ent an d walk ed up to he r chai r. S he was pow er les s to esca pe, bec ause she was unabl e t o ri se. Even a tr ained user ofhandguns has tr ou b le h itt in g a m ov in g t ar ge t, so h ad B ra n n on b ee n ab le to run o ut o fher apart m ent as M i kos ente re d, she m i ght b e al i ve today. But she coul d no t r i se; herphysi calco nd i ti on m ad e h er a si tting duck. That’ s why M i kos has never ve ntur ed th e ar g um en t th ato urdi ss en tingc o l l ea g ue advan c es . The st andards o fpl ai n er ro r, se e U nited Sta tes v. O l ano , 50 7 U.S
. 72 5, 73 3–37( 1993 ) , have notbee n sat i sfi ed. W hetherBrannon’ s obe si ty contr ibuted to her de mi s e i s a f actua l que s t i o n, n o ta l e g a l que s t i o n f o r a pp ell ate j ud ges, and the eviden ce p erm itted a rati ona l j ury t o fi nd a s thi s j ur y di d. I nstea d ofo pp osing the vul nerabl e- vi cti m f acto r al toge ther, M i kos co ntends thatthe pros ecuto r ove rs tepped i n one part ofhi s a rgum ent t o the j ury. A m edi calexam i ner testifi ed that Bran non bled to d eath (both i nt erna l he m orrhag i ng and l oss fro m the seve re d art er y) overthe cour seN os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 23

o fthr ee o r f o urmin ut es . In c l o singa r g um en t th e pr o se cuto r a sk ed th e r he to r i ca l que st i o n “ W ha t was [ B ran non] thi nki ng wh en she s at ther e forthr ee to f our m i nutes dying ?
. . . W ha t was she thi nk i ng ? S he c o ul dn’ t m o ve , s he cou ldn’ t cr y o ut, s he c o ul dn’ t r un, a nd the r ea so n s he c ou ld n ’t d o th os e t h in gs w as d u e t o h er d isa b ility .” T h is w as a p lea f orsy m pathy, an a pp ealto em oti ons ra ther th an rea so n, M iko s m ain ta in s. P e r h a p s B ra n n on fell qui ck l y i nt o unco ns ci o us ne ss , but, e ve n i fs he di d no t, the ar gum ent g oes , a pros ecuto r shoul d sti ck to the f acts ra therthan specul ate abo ut a vi cti m ’ s m entalpro cess es. ”W hat was she thi nki ng?” i s ind eed a b ad questi on t o have ask ed , e ven rheto ri cal l y, f orthe re aso ns M i kos has ar ti cu l ate d. Bu t i t i s i m possibl e t o bel i eve thatthi s br i ef f o r a y c o ul d ha v e a ffe c t e d the j ur y ’ s v e r di c t
. M i ss t e ps du ring cl osin g ar gum ent a re co m m on, bec ause these ar gu m en ts are u n sc rip te d . Th ey j u st ify a n ew tria l on ly w hen they ar e l i kel y to ove rwhelm othe r, ap propri ate , consi derat i ons. S ee Da r d e n v . Wai n wr ight, 477 U
. S. 16 8, 179 –8 3 ( 1986 )
. H er e the j ury’ s a tte nti on was f ocuse d by j ud ge and counselal i ke on the r i ght ques ti on: wh ether Brannon’ s obe sit y hindere d her abi l i ty to re si st orfl ee. The j ury’ s v er dicti s r el i abl e. b. M i kos chal l enges the l ack- of

- re m or se consi derat i on on t w o fro nts. H e co ntends thatpro secutorial s tat em ents abou t M ikos’s rem orse-free d em ean or in c o urta m o unt to a pe na l tyf o r hi s f ai lure t o t es ti fy . And he mai nt ains that the e vi dence di d not s up portthi s fa c tor
. Rel yi ng o n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rom an , 3 71 F
. S upp. 2d 36 ( D. P. R. 20 05 ) , he ar gues that onl y g l oat i ng o r boas tfulne ss, afterthe f ashi on24 N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 ofLeopol d and L oeb , sho w a m eani ngful “l ack ofr em or se .” There i s a se nse in w hi ch “l ack of re m or se” ove rl aps with

“ th e d e fe n d a n td i d n o tp l e a d g u i l t y ” , b u tth e S u p r e me Court has a pp ro ved thi s f acto r, se e Zantv. St ephe ns , 46 2 U
. S
. 8 6 2 , 8 8 6 n. 2 2 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , whi c h di ffe r s i n pr i nc i pl e f ro m a pen alty for f ai l ur e to i nc r i m i na te o ne se l f
. I t i s co m m o n, an d a cc ep tabl e, t o g i ve l o wers en te nc es t o pe r so ns who confess and show rem or se than to per sons w ho do no t; the S entencing Gu i del i nes i nsti tuti onal i ze thi s w i th a tw olev e l o r th re e-le ve l red u c tio n for a c c ep ta n c e o f res p on sibil ity. U
. S. S. G
. §3E 1.1. M ikos f ou gh t every ch arge every st ep o fthe way . Tha t was hi s r i g ht, b uti n the pr o ce ss he sh o wed no r emor se , c o m par ed wi tha pe r so n who c o nceded som e cul pabi l i ty ( i f onlyo n the fra ud char ges , w hi ch w er e ind i sputabl e)
. I fi t i s p roper to tak e co nfe ssi ons, gui l ty ple as, and vows to i m prove o ne’ s l i fe into acco unt w hen deci ding w hethera m urdere r shoul d be p u t t o death

— and i t i s unquesti onabl y pr operf ora j ud ge orj ury to do so , se e Wi l l i a ms v . Tayl or, 5 29 U
. S. 36 2, 39 8 ( 2000 )

— then i t m ust a l so be pr operf or t h e pr ose cutorto r e mi nd the j ur y whe n no ne o f the s e e v e nt s has occ ur r e d. The conse quence of no re m or se i s bui l t into the Gui del i nes, see U nite d State s v. K lotz , 943 F.2d 70 7 ( 7 t h C i r . 19 91 ); in a ca p italcas e, byco ntra st, nothi ng i s bui l t in, so wh at happ ens a utom ati cal l y a s ar esul t o f§3 E1.1 m u st be ar gued for . The two ar e e qually a pp ro pri ate
. T he prose cu tor’s m ain th e m e w as no t the absen ce of a gu ilty p lea , or M iko s’s s ilen c e (= th e la c k of a n ap olo gy ) in op en co urt, but the f act that M i kos had not done any-N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 25 thingt o r e du c e o r r e dr e s s the hu r t hi s c r i mes h a d c a us e d. H e had not, for exam p le, covered the cos ts of Br a n n on’s buri al, l eaving the se to her f am i l y and he r church. Instea d o ft ak i ngs te ps to make g o o d the l o ss es f o r whi chhe w as resp ons ibl e, M ikos h as us ed h is free tim e in j ailto try t o s wi n d l e th e Me d i c a r e fu n d o u to fmo r e mo n e y . He sent offdocum ents ask i ng tha t paym ent b e m ade to a di ffer en tly na m ed en ti tya t a di ffer en t addr es s, ho pi ng th atthi s woul d e va de admi ni st rativ e o r der s f o rbi ddi ng paym ent t o the nam e o f h is m edi calprac ti ce o n fi l e with the b urea ucracy . H e co nti nued co ntacting pro specti ve wi tn es se s a nd at te m ptingto per su ade the m t o k ee p s i l en t orto te l l l i es on hi s be hal f
. S om eo n e w h o car ri es on with cri m e, eve n afterbeing ca ught and i m pri sone d, can be c alle d rem or se les s w ith ou t st re tc h in g t h e t er m . H e is both m or e danger ous a n d less c apabl e o fi ncapaci tatio n by im p ris on m en t t h an is so m eo n e w h o ge n u in ely re gr ets hi s m i sdeeds. R em or s e m e an s re gr et an d co n tr itio n . Rom an su re ly is ri ght t o saythatbr agg i ng ab out one’ s c rim inales capades sh ow s la c k of re m or se , bu t itis m ist ak en to sa y t h at th is i s th e onlywayt o s ho w the abs en ce o fr em orse. Let ting vic tim s bearthe l oss o fcr i m e, wh i l e t ry i ng to ta m per w ith w itness es to esca p e con viction a n d c om m it m ore w ro ngs, al so si gnall ack ofr em or se, and that dem on str ati on w as m ade her e. The j ury convi cted M i kos o fo bstr ucting j us tice, not j us t of fraud and m urd er. Bu t l et us supp ose that thi s i s w ro ng and that lac k of rem orse ha s not b e e n m ad e out as a vali d non -statu tory ag g r av at i ngc o ns i der ation. La cko fr emor se i s a no n-26 N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 st atut o r y c o ns i der at i o n; i t di d no t pl aya ro l e i n mak i ng M ikos el igible f or the d eath pen alty. Th e Sup rem e Cou rt h eld in B row n v . S a nd ers , 54 6 U.S
. 21 2 ( 2006 ) , thatwh en an ag gr avat i ng co nsi derat i on o th er than o ne es senti alto death- el i gibi l i ty i s s et asi de, the sente nce s til l m ay be affi r m ed ifa l l o fthe e vi den ce tha t su ppo r te d thi s co nsi derat i o n wo ul d ha ve b ee n a dm i tt ed an y way, o r i fthe cour t co nd ucts a n i nd ependent re vi ew and concl ud es th atthe v er di ctr emai ns a ppr o pr i at e wi th o utthe inval i d c o ns i der at i o n. Brown ar ose o n col l ate ra l r evi ew o f a s tat e co urt’ s j ud gm ent, but m osto fwh atB r o wn says concerns how an appel l ate co urt shoul d proce ed on d ire c t re vie w o f a d ea th se n te n c e a n d h en c e is eq u ally appli cabl e withi n the federa l sy ste m . The Court ’ s o pini on inJon es , 527 U
. S. at 402–0 5, arise s from direct review of a fede r alde ath s en ten ce an d r ea ch es a s i m i l arc o nc l us i o n, hol ding that a federa l co urt ofappeal s m ay d ec lare a n er ro r concerning a n agg ra vating co nsi derat i on har m l ess i fthe j ud ges a re c onvi nced that the j ury w oul d have r etur ne d the s ame v er di ctha d the i nv al i d a ggrava ting c on sid er at ion n otbe en su b m itt ed attria l. M i kos does notco ntend that the “ l ack ofr em or se” c on si d e r at ion p u t b efo re th e jur y a n y e vid en c e t h at it o ug htno t ha ve r ec ei ve d. M o sto f M i k o s’ s co nt en ti o ns a d d r e s s th e p r o s e c u t o r ’ s c l o s i n ga r g u m e n t, w h i c h c a me after allof th e evid en ce. Th e j ury w as en titl ed to l earn abou t M ikos’s effor ts to con tinu e coll ectin g fr om M ed icare ( th at was r el ev an t to the s ubs ta nt i ve c ha r g es , a nd the ev id en c e c a m e in d u rin g t h e t ria l on th e m er its ) an d h is eff or ts to i nfl uence witnesses fro m pri son ( dit to: thi s was relevan t to several ofthe su bsta nt ive coun ts). M ikos’sN os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 27 d em ean or i n cou rt

— w hetherh e w as sto ny- f aced or tea ry eye d

— w as al re ady kno w n to the j uror s. So al l w e have is the pros ecuto r’ s a rgum ent about l ack of r emor se . Ta k e away th o se few pag es o f tr an sc r i pt, a nd the w ei ght o fev i dence r em ai ns. Fo ur a ggr avat i ng fa c to rs o r consider ati ons ar e s ol i d. The f acts o fthi s co l d-bl oo ded executi on o fa poten tialwitnes s dom i nate. Pro secuto ri al com m ents about M i kos ’ s dem eanori n cour t a nd l ack of vi sibl e r em or se str i ke us, a n d l i kel y s tr uck the j uror s, as gi l ding the l i l y. M any a probl em i n a cri m i nal pro secuti on i s ca used by su c h rhe tor i calexce sse s. Pro secuto rs cannot kn ow w ha t w il l carry w eight w ith j ur o r s , so they are te m pte d t o t r y e ve r y a ve nue . W he n th eydo , tha t o pen s the doo r to cl ai m s o fer ro r and app el l ate se cond-guessing. T h at ’s w h y t h e d o c tr in e o f h ar m les s e rro r is e ss en tia l. I fe r r o r o c c ur r e d i n th i s p e n a l t y p r o c e e d i n g, i tw a s h a r ml ess . A F F I RME D O N A L L S U B J E CT SE X CE PTR E S T I T U T I ON, W HIC H IS R EMAND ED .

P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e, c o nc ur r i ngi n pa r t a nd di ss en ting i n part
. Ia gr ee t h at the defendant’s co nvi cti on s houl d be uphe ld an d I j o i n tha t par t o fthe maj o r i tyo pi ni o n. But he i s en ti tl ed to a ne w dea th

- pen al tyhe ar i ng . The pr o se cuto r was no t co nt en t to po i nto uttha t th e m ur derwas the re sul t o f“s ubstanti alpl anni ng and prem edi tat i on t o28 N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421

c au se th e d ea th of a p er so n or c om m it an ac t o f te rro ris m ,” whi chthe F ede r alDe ath P en al tyActe xpl i ci tly a l l o ws the j ury to deem a f acto r enti tl i ng i t t o i m pose the death pen al ty
. 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 59 2( c) ( 9)
. He a l so a r g ue d tha t th e vi ct i m “ was pa r ti cul ar l y vul ne r ab l e due to ol d a g e, y o uth, or infirm ity, ” an oth er ex p li cit st at ut o r y f acto r, § 3 59 2(c )(11 ), an d th at (u n d er th e ra d ica lly u n sp ec ific st at u to ry ca tc h -all

— “any othe r agg ra vating f acto r [ that i s, any o therf acto r, bes i des tho se speci fi ed i n the sta tute, th at a j ur y ca n tr ea t as a r ea so n f o r se nt en ci ng the defen dant to d eath] f orwh i ch noti ce ha s be en gi ven, ” § 35 92( c) f ol l owing ( 16) ) the def endant had shown a l ack ofr em or se f orthe m urder. T he pro secuto r advanced two other nonsta tutory f acto rs as well : thatthe def endant had k i l l e d hi s v i c t i m t o pr e v e nt he r fr o m t e s t i fy i ngag ai nst hi m, a nd tha t the mur de r ha d c a us e d e mot i o na l ha r m to th e vi ct i m ’ s f ami l y a nd fr i en ds; b utthe se add l i tt l e to the f a c ttha tthe v i c t i m was k i l l e d a nd the mur de r p l a nn e d. T h e p ro se c u to r’s arg u m en ts ba se d on vic tim vu ln er ab ili t y a nd the de fe nd a nt ’ s l a c ko fr em o r s e we r e u ns o un d, an d I d o n otth in k it is p os sib le to find be yo n d a re as on ab le doubt (the appli cabl e s tandard, 18 U
. S. C. § 3 595( c) ( 2) ) that the j ur y wo ul d h a v e s e nt e nc e d the de fe nd a ntt o de a th ev en if th os e a rg u m en ts h ad n otb e e n m ad e. T h er e is m uch fussi ng i n the bri ef s o verthe defe nd ant’ s f ai l ure to ob j ec t t o th e arg u m en ts , bu t t h at m iss es th e p oin t. E ve n if th er e was no th i ngwro ngwi ththe pr o se cut o r ’ s m ak i ng th e ar g um en ts , the y do n’ t pr o vi de a ba si s for a fi ndi ng b ey on d a re as on ab le d ou b t t h at th e v ict im w as vu ln er ab le orthatthe defe nd ant l acke d rem or se.N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 29 V u ln er ab ility is rela tiv e to th e n at u re of th e c rim e. U nited Stat e s v. Sa m ps on , 486 F.3d 13 , 48-4 9 (1 st C ir. 20 07 ). A cl o se te d ho m o se xua l i s par ti cul ar l y v ul ne r ab l e to b eing b lac km aile d , U ni t e d S t at e s v. La l l e m and, 9 89 F
. 2d 936, 93 9 (7t h C ir. 19 93 ); U nited Sta tes v. H ug hes , 41 1 F
. 2d 461, 46 2- 63 ( 2d Cir
. 19 69) , b u t h e i s no t par ti cul ar l y v ulne rabl e t o cre dit

- car d fra ud
. T he factthat the vi cti m i n thi s ca se w as a 5

- f o o t3

- i nc h wo manwh o we i g he d n e a r l y 3 0 0 p o un ds m i ght ha ve m ade herpart i cul ar l y v ulne rabl e t o sol i ci tati ons forfra ud ule nt weight- l oss pro gr am s, to m uggi ng, and to a va ri etyo f other cri m es, but not to bei ng sho t t o dea thi n h era par tment
. In Sampson , the v i ct i m was fl ee i ng fro m a kni fe- w i eld in g ass ai l ant a nd m i ght ha ve esca ped ha d i t not been th at he ha d “un d ergon e op en -heart su rgery (a q u i n t u p le b yp as s) a p p ro x im at ely on e y ea r p rior to h is en co unt erwi thS ampso n; tha t he was o ve r wei g hta nd becam e sh or t ofbr eath eas i l y; and that he had diffi cul ty w al ki ng fi ftee n feetshort l y bef or e hi s m urder. ” 4 86 F. 3d at 49
. In U ni t e d S t at e s v. Paul, 217 F.3d 989 , 1001-0 2 ( 8th Cir. 20 00 ) , the v i ct i m was 8 3 y ea r s o l d a nd th e co ur t th o ug ht he m i ght ha ve escap ed o r beat en o ffhi s a tta cker s had he b een y ounger . Thi s ca se, i n contr ast, i s l i ke U nited St at e s v. Johns on , 136 F. Sup p . 2d 553, 560 ( W
. D
. V a. 2 0 0 1 ), wher e “the v i ct i m was k i l l ed i ns ta nt aneo us l y whenthe explo si ve d ev ice detonat ed. N othi ng ab out [ her] physi cal c o n d i t i on w ea ke n ed h er ca p ac ity to res istth e fa ta l bla st .” Se e a l so Francis v. State, 808 So. 2d 110, 139 (Fla. 2001). I t i s t rue that the y ou n ge r an d str onge r the intended vi cti m o fa shoo ting , t h e m or e l i kel y he i s t o be abl e t o r es i ste ffec ti ve l y o r s ur vi ve hi s wounds. Buti fthi s ar g um en t is p re ss ed h ar d en ou gh , eve ry on e o ve r 50 w ou ld30 N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 be de emed av ul ne r ab l e vi ct i m in an y c as e i nv o l vingthe u se of forc e. V u ln er ab ility m u st be as se ss ed on th e b as is ofthe re l ati on o fthe vi ctim ’s conditi on t o the par ti cul ar c irc u m st an c es of th e c rim e, Jone s v. U ni t e d S t ates , 5 27 U
. S. 37 3, 4 01

- 02 ( 19 99 ) , a s i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , sup ra . So al though th e j u d ge proper l y instr ucted the j ury that th e gov er n m en t ha d to p ro ve b ey on d a rea so n ab le do ubttha t “a ny i nfi r m i tywhi chy o u fi nd made [ th e vi cti m ] parti cul ar l y vul nerabl e m ust som ehow have contr ibuted to herd ea th ,” see U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sa m ps on , sup ra , 48 6 F. 3d at 34, m i ssing fro m thi s ca se i s e vi dence that the v i cti m ’ s v ulne rab i l i ty did co ntribute t o her death

— evi dence thata h ealthi ervi cti m m i ght ha ve survi ved bei ng sho t s i x ti m es i n the backatpoi nt-bl ank r ange or that the defendant w ould n ot h ave tr i ed to ki l l herhad she b een heal thi er because he would have bee n afra i d that sh e woul d g r ab the g un fr o m hi m . The g o ve r nm en t l aw yerdi d specula te at th e ar gu m ent in thi s co urt that had the v icti m bee n ofnor m alweight she m i ght ha ve gr ab b ed t h e g u n from th e d efe n d an t’s gra sp , bu t t h at is f an ci fuli n the extrem e, e spe ci al l y a s he was s ta ndi ng beh ind her. Ido notm ean to und er sta te the v i cti m ’ s di sabi l i ty caused byhero besi ty. S he had diffi cul ty g ett i ng up fro m a si tt i ng po si ti o n an d ne ede d ca ne s f o r wal k i ng, and s he us ed a ca th eter be ca us e sh e ha d t r o ubl e g et tingt o the bathr oo m i n ti m e when s he had t o uri nate. She had ro l l s o f ab do m i na l f atha ng i ngdo wn so l o w tha t th eyw ere atthe l ev elo fh er kn ee s, a nd the f atha d b ec o m e i nfec te d a nd ha d r equi r ed su r g ery t o s av e he r l i fe fr o m a n infec ti o n. S heN os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 31 ha d a sthm a an d a r th r i ti s and l egc r amps a nd f o r the accum ula ti on o fherai l m ents too k about 15 m edi c ati ons, som e o fwh i ch cau se d dro w si ness and fa ti gue. A l though nei thersingl y no r i n com bi nation d id herai l m ents have an yt h in g to d o w ith h er vu ln er ab ility to be in g s h otfat ally from beh in d a t close range, the cate gory of non statu tory agg ra vating f actors i s o pen-e nd ed and the pro secuto r coul d have ar gued that to ki l l a perso n al re ady so affl i cted w as especi al l y c rueland ugl y, l i ke the “b ru tal and sensel es s ex ec ut i o n s ty l e m ur dero fa he l pl es s ch i l d” i n Blac k v. B el l , 181 F. Sup p . 2d 832, 863 (M
. D
. Ten n. 2001). Th ere are intim ations of suc h an argum en t in the p rosecu tor’s cl osing st ate m ent t o the j ury, but he di d not a sk the j ury to con side r this as a f acto r i n agg rav a t io n of the d efend an t’s con d uc t; he relied instea d on th e s tatu tory fac tor of vu lnerabl e v i cti m , and that w as a m i sta ke; the ave rage perso n woul d no t ha ve e sc ape d i n thi s ca se wi thhi s l i fe. Hav i ng studie d the churc h’s sche du l e, the defe nd ant was abl e t o sneaki n w hen he k n ew t h at the v i cti m would be al one. Once he was i nsi de the church w i th a gun and deter m i ned to kill h er, herdeath was i nevi tabl e, no m att erwh at her physi calco nd i ti on. S h e coul d not hav e o utrun hi s bul l ets even i f sh e had been an O lym p ic sprinte r. The agg ra vating f acto r to w hi ch the pros ecuto r devote d th e b u l k o f h i s c l o s i n g a r g u me n t w a s l a c k o f r e mo r s e . He poi nted out that after ki l l i ng hi s vi cti m the defendant had continued to enga ge i n the M edi car e frau d t hat had m ot iva te d th e m u rd er . To d e e m th at a c irc u m st an c e in ag gr av at ion w as d ou b le c ou n tin g. T h e m u rd er w as a re su lt ofsubst anti alpl anni n g an d prem edi tat i on be cause i t was a m ea ns o ft r y i ngt o de feat the fr au d pr o se cut i o n a nd32 N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421

en ab l e th e defen dan t to c o nt inu e e ng ag i ngi n fr au d. The p la nn ing w as an aggravat ing factor tha t ent itl ed the j ury i n the e xe r ci se o fi ts di sc retion to s en te nc e hi m t o de ath, but i t was notev i dence ofa l ack of re m or se dist i nct fro m any infe re nce o fr em or sel ess ness that one w oul d draw fr o m a ny murde r tha t ha d be en pl anne d r athe r th anb eing spontaneo us. The pr o se cut o r t o l d the j ur y tha t th e defen dan t i s “s i tt i ng 2 0 fe e t a wa y fr o m y o u a nd the r e ’ s no thing, no r em or se wh a t s o e v e r, b e c a u s e h e th i n k s he g o ta wa y wi th i t
. ” ( An ec ho o f Ca mus : “ And ha s he ut t e r e d a wo r d o f r e g re t f or hi s m osto dio us cr i m e? Not o ne word, gentl em en. N ot once i n the c ou rse o fthe se pr o ce eding s di d thi s m ans ho w the lea st co n tr itio n .” A lbe rtC am u s, The S tran ger12 6 ( 1954 [ 1944 ] )
. ) Later the pros ecuto r add ed that the defe nd ant is “s o r r y he got c au g ht, b uthe ’ s no t so r r y tha t he s ho t [ th e vi cti m ]
. The onl y ra m i fi cati on of that as he’ s s i tting o pp osi te you rig h t n ow , nothi ng el se i n thi s m an’ s hea rt, nota sing l e th i ng. H e h as no r emor se f o r whathe di d. ” The onl y infe re nce the j ury coul d have draw n ( f ori t was gi ven no guid an c e by the j ud ge, wh o sai d about re m or se onl y that the go ver nm ent a l leg ed “thatdefendant has demons tr at ed a l ac ko fr emor se f o r hi s cr i m i na l c o ndu ct”

— w h ich m igh t ha ve be en ta ke n to m ea n th at it co u ld i m pose the death penal ty because of the defe nd an t’s lac k of re m or s e fo r c om m itt in g M ed ica re frau d ) w as th at h is f ai l ure to confess to the m urder i n open co urt showed that he l ac k ed r emor se . H ad he co nfes se d, ho wev er, th e j ury m igh t s t i l l ha ve im p os ed th e d ea th p en alt y a n d h e w ou ld have gi ven a w ay hi s co l or able (tho ugh ul ti m ate l y unsuc-N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 33

cess ful) cl ai m thatthe go ve rnm ent had f ai l ed to pro ve hi s guil t be yond a re aso nabl e doubt. It is t ru e t h a t so m et h in g like th is H ob so n ’s C h oic e is bui l t into the federa l se ntenci ng g uidel i nes fornoncapi tal federa l cr i m es. Ordi nari l y, to o btain a s enten c i ng di scount foracc epti ng r esponsibi l i ty f orthe cri m e with whi cho ne i s ch ar g ed o ne ha s to pl ea d g ui l tya nd thus gi ve up the chance t o conte st gui l t. U
. S. S entencing Guidelin es § 3E 1.1 , A p p lica tio n N ot es 2, 3; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Guadagn o , 97 0 F .2d 21 4, 22 6 (7 th C ir. 19 92 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. E sc obar-M ej ia , 915 F.2d 11 52 , 115 3 (7 th C ir. 19 90 ); U nited S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 9 40 F
. 2d 17 6, 1 83 ( 6th Ci r . 1 99 1)
. But ther e i s a di ffer ence between a defe nd an t’s arguingf or l e n i e n c y o n t he b a s i s o fh i s a d mi t t i n gt o h a v i n gc o mm i tte d the c r i me wi th whi c h he i s c ha r g e d a nd the g o ver nm ent’ s a sking the j ury to draw an infe re nce o fhei nousn es s fro m h is failu re to ad m it th at
. U nited Sta tes v. Sa un ders , 97 3 F
. 2d 13 54, 1 36 2- 63 ( 7th Ci r. 1 992 )
. In the fi r stc as e th e go ve rn m en t i s g i v in g (or , B o o k erha vingde m o te d the sen te nc i ngg ui del i ne s to a dvi so r y s ta tu s, r ec o m m en di ng that the j ud ge gi ve) t he defendant a b re ak i n exchange for his sp aring th e govern m en t the exp e n s e and un certa i nty o fa t r i al
. In the s ec o nd c ase the j udg e i s as k i ng th e j ury to infer rem orselessn e ss from the d efend an t’s re fusalto acknow l edge guil t. Yet the m oti ve f orthat re fusali s l i kel y t o b e si m plythatthe defe nd ant thi nks he mightb e ac qui tt ed. Yo u c anfee l r em ors e f o r ha ving com m i tte d a cr i m e without wanti ng to be pu ni shed by life in p ris on or d ea th . A d efe n d an t w h o ac c ep ts res p on sibi l i tyf o r hi s cr i m e i s no t den ie d a s en te nc i ngdi sc o unt for th at ac c ep ta n c e on th e th eo ry th at if h e w e r e r e a lly34 N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 contr i te he wouldn’tbe s ee king a l i ghterse ntence

— he w oul d rej ect the a cceptance di sco unt. O ne cou ld i m agine a legisl atu re’s dissolving the difference between a pu ni shm ent increase f orpro vi ng l ack of re m or se and the deni alo fa pu ni shm ent decr eas e for f ai l i ng to pro ve re m or se by deem i ng f ai l ure t o prove re m or se (a m i ti gat i ng f acto r) pro ofo fl ack ofr em or se ( an ag g r av at i ngf ac to r )
. ButCo ng r es s has no t do ne tha t. The Fede r a l De a th Pe na l t y Act r e qu i r e s pr o o f o fan agg ra vating f acto r beyo nd a reas on able doubt, but proo f o fa mit i g at i ngf ac to r b y a mer e pr epond eran ce o fthe ev i den ce . As the S upr eme Co ur t ex pl aine d in M cM i l l an v . P enns ylvania , 47 7 U.S
. 79 , 10 0- 01 ( 1986 ) ( ci tat i ons om i tte d) , “ th e di st i nc ti o n be twe ena g g r av at i nga nd mi ti g at i ng f acts has been cri tic ized as f or m al i sti c. But i ts abi l i ty to i denti fy g enui ne co nsti tuti onalthr eat s depends on no th i n g mo r e th a n th e c o n t i n u e d fu n c t i o n i n g o ft he dem ocr ati c pro cess . To a pp re ci ate the differ en ce b etween ag g r av at i nga nd mi ti g at i ngc i r cumst an ce s, i t i s i m po r ta nt t o r e me mb e r th a ta l th o u g h S t a t e s ma y r e a c h th e s a me des tina ti o n e i th erb y c r i m i na l i zingconduc t an d a l l o wi ng a n a ffi r mat i v e de fe ns e , o r b y p r o hib i t i ngl e s s e r c o nd uct an d e nh ancingthe pe na l ty, l eg i sl at i o n pr o ce edinga l o ng th es e t w o p at h s is ve ry d iffer en t e ve n ifi tm i g h t t h eo re tic ally ac h iev e t h e s am e re su lt. C on sid er , for e x am p le, a statu te m aking p resen ce ‘in a n y p rivate or pu bli c p lace’ a

‘ fel o ny puni sh ab l e byup to f i ve y ea r s i m pr i so nm en t’ a nd y eta l l o wi n g‘ a n a ffi r ma t i v e d e fe n s e f o r th e d e fe n d an t to p ro ve , t o a pre pond er ance ofthe evi dence, thathe was not robbing a ban k.’ N o de m ocratically el ecte d l egislature w ou ld en ac t s u c h a law .”N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 35 W hat would dem onst ra te a l ack ofr em or se w oul d be sta tem ents ( such as bra gging about the m urder) , ge stur es, l au g ht era s th e m ur derwas de sc r ibe d o r a g r i ev i ng re l ati ve tes ti fi ed, o r f aci alexpre ssi ons that i nd i cated that th e d e fe n d a n th a d i nd e e d n o r e g r e tab o u th a v i n gc o mm i tt ed th e m urd er. And thus i n E m m et t v. Kel ly, 474 F
. 3d 15 4, 1 70 ( 4th Ci r . 2 007), “whe n que st i o ne d abo utthe c irc u m st an c e s l ea d in g u p to th e m u rd er , E m m et t t old th e po li ce th at [his victim ] w as ‘an ass hole’ w ho ‘w ou ldn ’t l o anme no mone y, ’ a nd th at i t ‘ j us t se emed r i g hta t th e ti m e, ’ dem onst ra ti ng a l ack ofr em or se and cal l ous di sr eg ar d f o r human l i fe si m i l art o tha t demons tr at ed i n the w ak e o f h is killin g oft h e m ot or c yc lista few ye ar s p rior .” Se e a l so Tho m a s v. G ilm o re, 144 F. 3d 513, 514 ( 7th Cir. 1998); Cobl ev. Q uar t e r m anm 496 F .3d 430, 438 (5th Cir. 2007); U ni t e d St at e s v. Rom an , 37 1 F
. S upp. 2d 36 , 4 8, 5 0- 51 ( D. P. R. 2005 ). M er e s i l ence i s no t e nough to de m onst ra te l ack of re m or se. N orf ai l u re t o take extr aor dinar y e ff or ts to d em ons trate rem orse, su ch as pa ying fo r th e victim ’s fune r ale xpe ns es . S ucha f ai l ur e m i g htdefeat the de fen dan t’ s eff o r t t o pl ea d re m o r se as a mit i g at i ngf ac to r ; b utthe abse n c e of a m i ti gat i ng f acto r cannot autom ati cal l y b e conve rt ed to the prese nce o fan a ggr avat i ng o ne. Psychol ogi sts wh o seto ut to stud y lac k o fr em or se am ong pri sone rs pro ceeded as f ol l ows: “Lack ofr em or se w as oper ati onal i zed as eith er (a ) a negat i ve answ erto a questi on co ncer ni ng wh etherthe re spondent eve r re gr ett ed havi ng des troye d orst ol en pro perty, o r m i str eat ed orhar m ed another pe rs on, o r w i shed thes e m aj or36 N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 vi ol ati ons ofthe ri ghts ofo ther s had neve r happ ened; o r ( b) a n af fi rm at i ve a ns wert o a que st i o n c o nc erni ng w hetherthe re sp on d en t fel t he orshe had the r i ght t o do the b eh av i o r ( s) , o r tha t th e peop l e affec te d b y the be ha vi o r ( s) de se r ve d whatthe y g o t. ” Ri së B. Go l dst ein, et al. , “L ack of R em orse in A nt isocialPerson ali ty D isorder: S o ci o demog r aph i c Cor r el at es , Sy m pto m at i c Pr es en ta ti o n, an d C om orb id ity W ith A x is I an d A x is II D iso r d e rs in th e N at i o na l Epi demi ologi c S ur ve y o n Al co ho l a nd Rel ate d C ond itions, ” 4 7 C o m preh ensiv e P syc hia try28 9, 29 1 ( 20 06 ) ; s ee a l so M ar th a Gr ac e Dunc an, “ ‘ S o You nga nd S o Unte nde r ’ : Re m o r se l es s Chi l dr ena nd the Expe ct at i o ns ofthe Law , ” 1 02 Colum . L
. Re v. 1 4 6 9 , 1 4 9 1

- 9 2 ( 2 0 0 2 )
. No eff or t t o do thatwas m ade i n thi s case. I t would have hel ped had the prose cutoror the j ud ge ( orf orthatm att er the defe nd ant’ s l aw yer ) tol d the j ury w h at “rem or se” m ean s a n d h ow i ts p resen ce or absen ce can be d eterm i ned. They di d not. N o t ev ery pre m edi ta te d m ur der eri s se nt en ce d t o de ath, see , e. g. , C a rm ichael v. State, 12 S. W
. 3d 225 (A rk. 2000); S c ho e l s v . S tate, 96 6 P .2d 73 5 (N ev . 199 8); Peop l ev. P o ind exter, 5 0 Ca l
. R pt r . 3 d 4 8 9 ( App. 2 0 06)

— qui te the co nt r ar y . The f orce of 18 U. S
. C. § 3 59 2( c) ( 9) i s no t i n the w or d “prem edi tat i on” but i n the phrase “substan ti al pla nning”

— yet not all m urd erers w ho plan their m urd ers w ell in ad va n c e a re se n t e n c e d to d ea th eith er . See , e.g., U n ited St ates v. Russe ll, 9 7 1 F
. 2 d 1 0 9 8 , 1 1 0 3

- 0 4 ( 4th C ir. 19 92 ); Peop l ev. St
. Jo s eph , 27 6 Cal
. Rptr. 49 8, 50 0- 01 ( App. 19 90 )
. W i th o ut th e ag g r av at i ng f ac to r s f o und b y the j ur y i n thi s ca se , i t i s unc er ta i n w he th erthe de fen dan t w ou ld h av e b ee n se n t e n c ed to d ea th . In on e s tu d y, 39 .8N os. 06

- 2375 , 06

- 2376 & 06

- 2421 37 perce nt o fj uror s in capita l ca ses sa i d that a l ack of re m or se ei therm ade them o r w ou l d have m ade them m o r e l i k ely t o v o te t o i m po se the de ath pe na l ty
. S te phe n P
. Garvey, “Aggra vati on a nd M i ti gat i on in C ap i talCases : W hat Do J uror s Thi nk?, ” 9 8 C o lum . L. R ev . 15 38, 15 60-61 ( 1998 )
. A stud y b y Theo dore Ei senber g e tal
. , “ B u tWa s He So rr y? T h e Rol e o fRem or se i n Capita l S entencing, ” 8 3 Corn e l l L. Re v. 15 99, 16 33 ( 1998 ), fo und thatl ack of re m or se w as the thi rd m ostpow er ful ag gr avati ng f acto r i n c api ta l s en te nc i ng . See al so S co ttE. S undb y, “ The Cap i talJ ury and A bso l ution : Th e Inter sect i on o fTri al St ra teg y, Rem or se, and the Death Penal ty, ” 8 3 Corn e l l L. Rev
. 15 57, 15 60 ( 1998); W i l l i am S
. Gei m er& J onathan A m ste rdam , “W hy J uror s Vot e Li fe o r Death: Ope rati ve Fact or s i n Ten Fl or i da Death Penal ty Cases, ” 1 5 A m . J
. C rim . L
. 1 , 4 0

- 4 1 ( l 9 8 7

- 1 9 8 8 )
. “ I n a c a p i t a l s e n t e n c i ng proce edi ng, as ses sm ents ofchar acte r and rem or se m ay car rygr eatweight and, per haps, be deter m i nativ e of w h et h er the offender l i ves ordi es. ” Rigg i ns v. Ne vada , 504 U
. S. 127, 144 (1992 ) (conc urring op inion).

8- 25- 08