# 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- 18 19

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

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.

Ro be rt D. Webs te r

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 Ne br as ka - Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 14, 2 01 5
Fil ed : Au gu st 13 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, SMITH, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

A jury co nv ic te d Ro be rt Dio n W eb st er, an In di an , of ag gr av at ed se xu al ab us e

of a ch il d, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 41 (c) as ex te nd ed by 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 5 2.

W eb st er ap pe al s. Hav in g ju ris di ct io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 , th is co ur t af fir m s.I.

Sect io n 22 41 (c) ou tl aws a g g r a v a t ed se xu al ab us e of a ch il d y ou ng er th an 12

“ in th e sp eci al m ari ti m e an d terr it or ia l juri sd ic ti on of th e Uni te d St at es .” 18 U.S.C.
§ 2 24 1( c) . It i s a c ha pt er 1 09 A fel on y

.

Sect io n 11 52 “ pr ov id es fed eral juri sd ic ti on fo r cri m es oc cu rri ng wit hi n In di an

co un try b et ween an In di an an d a no n- In di an .” Unit ed St at es v. Gra h a m , 5 7 2 F.3 d

95 4, 9 56 n.3 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) . It s ta te s:

Exc ep t as ot he rwis e ex pr es sl y pr ov id ed by la w, th e ge ne ral la ws of th e Uni te d St at es as t o t he pu ni sh m en t o f of fen se s co m

m it te d i n a ny pla ce wit hi n th e so le an d ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on of th e Uni t e d St at es , ex cep t th e Dis tri ct of C ol um

bi a, sh al l ex te nd to th e In di an co un try.

Thi s se ct i o n s h a l l no t ex te nd to of fen se s co m

m it te d by on e In di an

a g a i n st th e pe rs on or pr op ert y of an ot he r In di an , no r to an y In d i a n

co m m it ti ng an y of

fen se in th e In di an co un try who ha s be en pu ni sh ed by
th e lo cal la w of th e tri be

, or to an y cas e whe re, by tre at y st ip ul at io ns , th e

ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on ov er su ch of fen se s is or m ay be se cu red to th e In di an tri be s re sp ect iv el y

.

18 U.S.C. § 11 52 (“ In di an Co un try Crim es Act” or “ Gen eral Cri m es Act” ).

A g ran d jury in di ct ed W eb st er in Decem be r 20 12 , a l l e g i n g: “ Bet ween on or
ab ou t May 20

, 20 07 an d on or ab ou t Ju ly 20

, 20 07

, . . . on an d wit hi n th e Om ah a

In di an Res erv at io n in In di an Co un try, [Webs te r], a n In di an m al e, di d kn owi ng ly

en ga ge in a se xu al act wit h A.C., a ch il d who ha d no t at ta in ed th e ag e of 12 y ears , to

wit : co nt act be twee n th e de fen da nt ’s pe ni s an d th e ch il d’s an us

. . . .” The in di ct m en t

-2

-di d no t al le ge A.C. was a no n- In di an or th at W eb st er ha d no t face d tri ba l pu ni sh m en t.

W eb st er d id no t m ov e to di sm is s t he in di ct m en t. 1

A t th e May 20 13 tri al

, W eb st er st ip ul at ed th at he is an In di an (“ an en ro ll e d

m em be r of th e Om ah a Trib e”) an d A.C. is a no n

- I n d i a n , who was ei gh t du rin g th e

al le ge d da te -ran ge

. At or al arg um en t, W eb st er’s co un se l sa id he st ip ul at ed to A.C.’ s

no n- In di an st at us be cau se “ th e in di ct m en t was pl ed li ke an [§] 11 53 cas e.”

The di st ric t co ur t ex cl ud ed refe ren ces to a tri ba l c o mp la in t fil ed ag ai ns t 2

W eb st er in th e Om ah a Trib al Co ur t. W eb st e r ’s c o u n se l ack no wled ge d, “ It’s be en
di sm is se d b ecau se of t he fed eral – Un it ed Sta te s g ov ern m en t b rin gi ng a cas e.”

The jury he ard reco rd in gs of W eb st er’s jail ph on e c a ll s. The go ve rn m en t

pr ov id e d a t r an sc rip t to th e co ur t an d W eb st er (b ut no t th e jury); W eb st er sa id he

st ip ul at ed to th e reco rd in gs ba se d on th e tra ns cri pt

. Afte r th e go ve rn m en t pl ay ed an

ex cerp t, W eb st er’s co un se l sa id

, “ I th in k th ere were so m e t h i n g s in th ere th at were

sa id th at weren ’t on th e tra ns cri pt th at was ap pr ov ed .” The reco rd do es no t in di cat e
wha t was pl ay ed or h ow i t d iff ered fro m th e tr an sc rip t.

At th e cl os e of ev id en ce, W eb st er m ov ed fo r acq ui tt al

, arg ui ng th e go ve rn m en t

di d no t pr ov e th e ab se nc e of tri ba l pu ni sh m en t. The co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n. The

The go ve rn m en t co ul d ha v e ch arg ed W eb st er un de r 18 U.S.C. § 11 53

, th e 1 Majo r Cri m es Act, whi ch ap pl ie s to ch ap te r 10 9A fel on ie s. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 11 53 (a ) (“ Any In di an who co m

m it s ag ai ns t th e pe rs on or pr op ert y of an ot he r In di an or ot he r

pe rs on

. . . a fel on y un de r ch ap te r 10 9A

. . . w i t h i n th e In di an co un try, sh al l be

su bjec t to th e sa m e la w an d pe na lt ie s as al l ot he r pe rs on s co m m it ti ng an y of th e ab ov e of fen se s, wit hi n th e ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on of th e Uni te d St at es .” (em ph as is ad de d) ).

The Hon or ab le Ly le E. St ro m , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of 2

Neb ras ka

.

-3

-jury ret ur ne d a gu il ty ve rd ic t in on e ho ur

. Two week s la te r, W eb st er m ov ed ag ai n fo r

acq ui tt al , cha ll en gi ng th e g ov ern m en t’s fa il ur e to pro ve A.C.’ s n on -In di an st at us

.

At s en te nc in g, A.C. as ke d to te st ify. The co ur t d ecl in ed bu t re cei ve d a let te r

fro m A.C. The co ur t di d n o t r e a d t h e le tt er in to th e reco rd or gi ve a co py to th e

pa rti e s

. It se nt en ced W eb st er to 30 y ears ’ im pr is on m en t, th e m an da to ry m in im um

. Two m on th s aft er no ti ci ng hi s ap pe al

, W eb st er m ov ed th e di st ric t co ur t to pr od uc e

A.C.’ s l et te r. The co ur t d en ie d t he m ot io n.

II.

A.

Ch al le ng in g th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev i d en ce, W eb st er cl ai m s a va ria nc e
be twee n t he ev id en ce an d t he in di ct m en t’s d at e-ra ng e.

“ W he th er a va ria nc e e x is ts

, an d, if so , whe th er th at va ria nc e pr ejud ic ed
[Webs te r] are qu es ti on s of la w th at we rev ie w de no vo .” Unit ed St at es v. V il la rr ea l

, 70 7 F.3 d 94 2, 96 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). “ W he re th e in di ct m en t ‘full y an d fai rly’ ap pr is es

th e de fen da nt of th e al le ga ti on s ag ai ns t whi ch he m us t de fen d, pr ejud ic e is ab se nt an d

an y v a r i a n c e i s h arm le ss erro r.” Id

. “ [T]he us e of ‘on or ab ou t’ in an in di ct m en t

rel ie ve s th e go ve rn m en t of pr ov in g th at th e cri m e ch arg ed oc cu rred on a sp eci fic da te

,

so lo ng as it oc cu rred wit hi n a reas on ab le ti m e of th e da te sp eci fie d.” Unit ed St at es

v. Keny on , 39 7 F.3 d 10 71

, 10 78 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). “ And ev en if th e pr oo f at tri al do es

no t sh ow th at th e cri m e oc cu rred wit hi n a reas on ab le ti m e of th e da te sp eci fie d in th e

in di ct m en t, a va ria nc e be twee n th e da te in th e pl ead in g an d th e pr oo f is no t fat al if th e

pr oo f sh ows th at th e act s ch arg ed were co m m it te d wit hi n th e pe rio d of th e st at ut e of

li m it at io ns an d pr io r to th e da te of th e in di ct m en t, as lo ng as th e da te is no t a m at eri al

el em en t of th e of

fen se , an d th e de fen da nt is no t pr ejud ic ed .” Id

. (b rack et s om it te d)

.

-4

-Eve n if th ere were a va ria nc e wit h th is “ on or ab ou t” da te -ran ge , it was no t

fat al

. Se e id

. The re is no st at ut e of li m it at io ns fo r § 22 41 (c). Se e 18 U.S.C. § 32 99
(“ Not wit hs ta nd in g an y ot he r la w, an in di ct m en t m ay be fo un d

. . . at an y ti m e wit ho ut

li m it at io n

. . . fo r an y fel on y un de r ch ap te r 10 9A

. . . .”). W eb st er do es no t arg ue th at

th e ev id en ce sh owe d th e al le ge d act hap pe ne d aft er th e Decem be r 20 12 in di ct m en t.

The da te is no t an el em en t of § 22 41 (c). Se e Unit ed St at es v. Pl e n t

y A rr ow s , 94 6

F.2 d 62

, 65 & n.1 (8 th Ci r. 19 91 ). And th ere is no pr ejud ic e be cau se th e “ in di ct m en t

‘full y an d fai rly’ ap pr is e[d ]” W eb st er of th e al le ga ti on s— th at he en ga ge d in a sp eci fic

se xu al act wit h a sp eci fic pe rs on at a cert ai n pl ace. Se e V il la rr ea l

, 70 7 F.3 d at 96 2.

B.

Acco rd in g to W eb st er, A.C.’ s no n- In di an st at us an d th e ab se nc e of tri ba l

pu ni sh m en t are “ el em en ts ” of § 11 52

. On ap pe al

, he m ak es di ffer en t arg um en ts fo r
each “ el em en t,” a nd th is co ur t ad dr es se s t he m sep arat el y

.

1.

Fo r A

. C .’ s no n- In di an st at us , W eb st er arg ue s, “ Due to th e fai lu re by th e

go ve rn m en t to al le ge th e In di an st at us of th e vi ct im in th e in di ct m en t, th e in di ct m en t

was fat al ly flawed .”

W eb st er fir st ch al le ng ed th e in di ct m en t ab ou t A.C.’ s st at us two week s aft er th e May 20 13 tri al

. Unt il Decem be r 1, 20 14

, “ A ch al le ng e th at an in di c t men t f a i l s to

st at e an of

fen se

. . . [co ul d] be rai se d at an y ti m e whi le th e cas e i s p e n di ng .” Se e

Unit ed St at es v. Buch an an , 57 4 F.3 d 55 4, 56 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ), ci ti ng Fed. R. Crim.

P. 12 (b)( 3) (B) (eff

. Dec. 1, 20 02 ). Eve n so : “ An in di ct m en t th at is ch al le ng ed aft er 3

Now, “ The fo ll owi ng de fen se s, ob jecti on s, an d req ue st s m

us t be rai se d by 3

pr et ria l m ot io n if th e ba si s fo r th e m ot io n is th en reas on ab ly av ai la bl e an d th e m ot io n

-5

-jeop ard y at ta ch es , wil l be up he ld ‘unl es s th e in di ct m en t is so de f e c t i v e th at by no

reas on ab le co ns tru ct io n can it be sa id to ch arg e th e of fen se .’ ” Buch an an , 57 4 F.3 d

at 56 5 (b rack et s om it te d)

. “ [W] e ap pl y a m or e de fere nt ia l st an da rd of re v ie w,”

Uni te d St at es v. W

hi te

, 24 1 F.3 d 10 15

, 10 21 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ), an d “ an in di ct m en t th at

is ch al le ng ed aft er jeop ard y ha s at ta ch ed wil l be l i b e r al ly co ns tru ed in fav or of

su ffi ci en c y,” U

n i t e d St at es v. Dav is

, 10 3 F.3 d 66 0, 67 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ). “ An

in di ct m en t is su ffi ci en t if it fai rly in fo rm s th e accu se d of th e ch arg es ag ai ns t hi m an d

al lo ws hi m to pl ead do ub le jeop ard y as a ba r to a fu tu re pr os ecu ti on .” Unit ed St at es

v. Ma ll en , 84 3 F .2d 10 96 , 11 02 (8t h C ir. 1 98 8)

.

Thi s co ur t ha s no t ad dr es se d wh e th er § 11 52 es ta bl is he s of fen se el em en ts

.

“ Two Sup rem e Co ur t deci si on s in di cat e th at th e st at us of t he vi ct im is an el em en t.”

Unit ed St at es v. Pren ti

ss , 25 6 F.3 d 97 1, 97 5, 98 0 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 01 ) (en ba nc ) (h ol di ng

“ th e In di an /n on -In di an st at us es of th e vi ct im an d th e de fen da nt are es se nt ia l

el em en ts ”), ab ro ga te d on ot he r gr ou nd s as re co gn iz ed by Unit

ed St at es v. Si nk s , 47 3

F.3 d 13 15

, 13 21 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 07 ). Tho se cas es

— Smi th v. Uni te d St at es , 15 1 U.S. 50
(1 89 4)

, an d Lu ca s v. Uni te d St at es , 16 3 U.S. 61 2 (1 89 6) —i nt erp ret ed a pr ed eces so r

to § 11 52

, al th ou gh on e wit h “ ne arl y id en ti cal ” la ng ua ge

. Pren ti ss , 25 6 F.3 d at 97 5

& n.3

. Se e al

so Unit ed St at es v. Tor re s , 73 3 F.2 d 44 9, 45 7 (7 th Ci r. 19 84 ) (h ol di ng

“ th e jury m

us t de te rm in e, as a qu e s t i o n o f f a ct

, th e vi ct im ’s st at us as an In di an or

no n- In di an ”).

Eve n if th e vi ct im ’s st at us is an el em en t of § 11 52

, th e in di ct m en t’s fail ur e to

al le ge A.C.’ s st at us di d no t ren de r it “ so de fect iv e th at by no reas on ab le co ns tru ct io n

can it be sa i d t o c h a r g e th e of fen se .” Buch an an , 5 74 F.3 d at 56 5. The in di ct m en t

“ fai rly in fo rm [ed ]” W eb st er of th e ch arg e ag ai ns t hi m —t ha t he en ga ge d in a sp eci fic

can be d e te rm in ed wit ho ut a tri al on th e m eri ts :

. . . a de fect in th e in di ct m en t or in fo rm at io n, in cl ud in g:

. . . fai lu re to st at e an of fen se

. . . . ” Fe d

. R

. Crim. P.

12 (b)( 3) (B)( v) (eff. Dec . 1, 2 01 4)

.

-6

-se xu al act wit h a sp eci fic pe rs on at a cert ai n pl ac e

. S e e M a l l e n , 84 3 F.2 d at 11 02

. The in di ct m en t was su ffi ci en t t o a ll ow Webs te r to pl ead do ub le jeop ard y

. Se e id

.

At or al arg um en t, W eb st er’s co un se l sa id he st ip ul at ed to A.C.’ s no n- In di an

st at us be cau se “ th e in di ct m en t was pl ed li ke an [§ ] 11 53 cas e”— whe re th at st at us is

irr el ev an t. S e e 1 8 U

. S.C. § 11 53 (a ) (“ Any In di an who co m m it s ag ai ns t th e pe rs on

or pr op ert y of an ot he r In di an or ot he r pe rs on

. . . a fel on y un de r ch ap te r 10 9A

. . . .”).

Bec au se th e go ve rn m en t ch arg ed W eb st er wit h a ch ap te r 10 9A fel on y , A.C.’ s st at us

di d no t affe ct W eb st er’s de fen se in th is cas e. Se e Unit ed St at es v. Whi te Ho rs e , 31 6

F.3 d 76 9, 77 1, 77 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (d is cu ss in g “ co m pl em en ta ry na tu re of § 11 52 an d
§ 11 53 ” in cas e of In di an d e f e n d a n t ch arg ed wit h se xu al ly ab us in g hi s so n, in

vi ol at io n of § 22 41 (c) as ex te nd ed by § 11 52 ); Unit ed St at es v. Ma rt in

, 77 7 F.3 d 98 4,

99 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (acc ep ti ng as co nc lu si ve de fen da nt ’s st ip ul at io n to In di an st at us

fo r pu rp os es of § 11 53 ).

2.

Fo r tri ba l pu ni sh m en t, W eb s te r arg ue s, “ The ev id en ce pr es en te d was no t

su ffi ci en t t o p ro ve th at th e d efen da nt was n ot pu ni sh ed in tri ba l co ur t.”

W eb st er m ov ed fo r acq ui tt al on th is ba si s at th e cl os e of ev id en ce. Thi s co ur t

r ev ie ws th e de ni al of hi s acq ui tt al m ot io n de no vo

. Se e Unit ed St at es v. G o o d

w i n , 71 9 F.3 d 85 7, 86 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ); Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 (a ) (“ Mo ti on fo r a Ju dg m en t

of Acqu it ta l” ). 4

W eb st er di d no t m ak e a st ip ul at io n ab ou t th e ab se nc e of t r i ba l pr os ecu ti on , 4

al th ou gh hi s co un se l sa id th e tri ba l co m pl a i n t h a d “been di sm is se d be cau se of th e fed eral – Un it ed Sta te s g ov ern m en t b rin gi ng a cas e.”

-7

-No co ur t ap pe ars to ha ve de ci de d whe th er th e ab se nc e of tri ba l pu ni sh m en t is

an el em en t. Cf

. Pren ti ss , 25 6 F.3 d at 98 0 n.8 (d ecl in in g to de ci de if ab se nc e of tri ba l

pu ni sh m en t is el em en t). In Uni te d St at es v. Hes te r , th e Nin th Ci rcu it

, in a cas e wit h

In di an vi ct im s, he ld “ th e Gov ern m en t ne ed n o t a l l e ge th e no n- In di an st at us of th e
de fen da nt in an in di ct m en t un de r se ct io n 11 52

, no r do es it ha ve th e bu rd en of go in g

fo rward on th at is su e.” Unit ed St at es v. Hes te r , 71 9 F.2 d 10 41

, 10 43 (9 th Ci r. 19 83 ).

Se e al so Unit ed St at es v. Br uce , 39 4 F.3 d 12 15

, 12 22 -2 3 (9 th Ci r. 20 05 ). The co ur t

reas on ed

, “ It is far m or e m an ag e a b l e fo r th e de fen da nt to sh ou ld er th e bu rd en of

pr od uc in g evi de nc e th at he is a m em be r of a fed eral ly recog ni zed tri be th an it is fo r

th e Gov ern m en t to pr od uc e ev id en ce th at h e i s n o t a m em be r of an y on e of th e

hu nd red s of su ch tri be s.” Hes te r , 71 9 F.2 d at 10 43 (ad di ng , “ Onc e th e de fen da nt

pr op erl y rai se s th e is su e of hi s In di a n s t a t u s , th en th e ul ti m at e bu rd en of pr oo f

rem ai ns , of c ou rs e, up on th e Gov ern m en t.”)

.

App lying th e Nin th Ci rcu it ’s reas on in g, th is co ur t co nc lu de s t h e a b s en ce of

tri ba l pr os ecu ti on is no t an el em en t of § 11 52

. It is far m or e m an ag eab le fo r W eb st er

to in it ia ll y sh ow he w a s “p u n i s h e d by th e lo cal la w of th e tri be ” th an it is fo r th e

go ve rn m en t to in it ia ll y sh ow th e ne ga ti ve —t ha t W eb st er ha s no t be en pu ni sh ed

. Se e

id

. Se e al so McK el vey v. Unit

ed St at es , 26 0 U.S. 3 5 3

, 3 5 7 ( 1 9 22 ) (“ By rep eat ed

de ci si on s it ha s co m e to be a se tt le d ru le in th is juri sd ic ti o n t h a t a n in di ct m en t or

ot he r pl ead in g fo un de d on a ge ne ral pr ov is io n de fin in g th e el eme n t s o f an of fen se ,

or of a ri g h t co nf

erre d, ne ed no t ne ga ti ve th e m at te r of an ex cep ti on m ad e by a

pr ov is o or ot he r di st in ct cl au se , whe th e r in th e sa m e se ct io n or el se whe re, an d th at

it is in cu m

be nt on on e who rel ie s on su ch an ex cep ti on to se t it up an d es ta bl is h it .”).
Cf

. Sm it h v. Uni te d Sta te s , 13 3 S. Ct

. 71 4, 72 0, 72 1 (20 13 ) (h ol di ng de fen da nt ha d

bu rd en to sh ow wit hd rawal fro m co ns pi racy, an d st at in g, “‘W he re th e fact s wit h

reg ard to an is su e li e pe cu li arl y in th e kn owl ed ge of a pa rty,’ th at pa rty is be st si tu at ed

to be ar th e bu rd en of pr oo f” (q uo ti ng Dix on v. Unit ed St at es , 54 8 U.S. 1, 9 (2 00 6) )).

-8

-Thi s in te rp ret at io n sq ua res wit h § 11 52 ’s pl ai n la ng u a ge an d co ns tru ct io n.

Co ng res s g av e n o i nd ic at io n t ha t it was re qu iri ng th e g ov ern m en t t o p ro ve di ffi cu lt

el em en ts

. Rat he r, th e fir st pa rag rap h “ ex te nd [s ] to t h e I n d i an co un try” fed eral

en cl av e la ws. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 11 52 ; Unit ed St at es v. Y an kt on , 16 8 F.3 d 10 96

, 10 97

n.4 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (s ta ti ng t ha t § 11 52 “ gr an ts fed eral juri sd ic ti on fo r of fen se s

co m m it te d on fed eral en cl av es ”). The se co nd pa rag rap h “ co nt ai ns th ree ex cep ti on s

to th e ge ne ral ex te ns io n of fed eral en cl av e la w to In di an co un try.” Unit ed St at es v.

Thund er Ha wk , 1 27 F.3d 70 5, 7 06 (8t h C ir. 19 97 ). Se e al so Unit ed St at es v. Ir on

Shel l

, 63 3 F.2 d 77

, 89 (8 th Ci r. 19 80 ) (d is cu ss in g “ juri sd ic ti on al sc he m e de fin in g th e

ro le of f ed eral co ur ts reg ard in g In di an cri m in al law,” i nc lu di ng § 1 15 2)

.

The ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t to co nv ic t W eb st er of § 22 41 (c) as ex te nd ed by §

11 52

.

C.

W eb st er ap pe al s th e ex cl us io n of th e tri ba l co m pl ai nt an d a d mi s si on of th e

reco rd in g. “ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r c l e a r a bu se of

di sc ret io n, rev ers in g on ly whe n an im pr op er ev i d e nt ia ry ru li ng affe ct ed th e
de fen da nt ’s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s or ha d m or e th an a sl ig ht in flu en ce on th e ve rd ic t.”

Unit ed Sta te s v. E

sp in oz a , 68 4 F .3d 76 6, 7 78 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2)

.

W eb st er in te nd ed to us e th e tri ba l co m pl ai nt “ to sh ow th at th e da te -ran ge of th e [in di ct m en t] was fal se .” Acco rd in g to th e go ve rn m en t

, “Th e I n di ct m en t ch arg ed a

two -m on th ti m e pe rio d th at wa s s t i l l wit hi n th e two -y ear ti m e pe rio d al le ge d in th e

tri ba l co m

pl ai nt .” W eb st er do es n o t c o n te st th is st at em en t, or m ak e a reco rd ab ou t

th e da te -ran ge al le ge d in th e tri ba l co m pl ai nt

. He can no t sh ow th e fal si ty of th e

in di ct m en t’s da te -ran ge by in tro du ci ng a se co nd ran ge en co m pa ss in g it

. Fo r th e

in te nd ed pu rp os e, ex cl ud in g th e tri ba l co m pl ai nt co ul d no t ha ve “ m or e th an a sl ig ht

-9

-in flu en ce on th e ve rd ic t.” Se e id

. W eb st er fai ls to sh ow th at ex cl ud in g th e tri ba l

co m pl ai nt was a n a bu se of d is cret io n.

W eb st er arg ue s th e reco rd in g la ck ed fo un da ti on be cau se it “ di ffer ed fro m th e

tra ns cri pt us ed in st ip ul at in g to th e ev id en ce.” N o t h i n g i n th is co ur t’s reco rd

, in cl ud in g W eb st er ’ s appe ll at e br ie f, in di cat es wha t was pl ay ed or ho w it di ffer ed fro m

th e tra ns cri p t

. W eb st er do es no t arg ue th e go ve rn m en t pl ay ed pr ejud ic ia l m at eri al

. Eve n if th e reco rd in g l a c ke d fo un da ti on , W eb st er ha s no t sh own th at an y

in co ns is te nc y

wit h t he tra ns cri pt affe ct ed hi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. Se e id

.

The co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n by ex cl ud in g th e tri ba l com pl ai nt or b y
ad m it ti ng th e rec or di ng

.

D.

W eb st er arg ue s th e co ur t erre d by refu si ng to pr od uc e A.C.’ s le tt er. “ The fil in g

of a no ti ce of app eal . . . con fers juri sd ic ti on on th e co ur t o f ap pe al s an d d iv es ts th e
di st ric t co ur t of it s co nt ro l ov er th os e as pe ct s of th e c as e in vo lv ed in th e ap pe al .”

Gri gg s v. Pr ov id

ent Co ns um er

Dis c. Co

. , 45 9 U.S. 5 6, 5 8 (1 98 2) . Webs te r m ov ed

to pr od uc e aft er no ti ci ng hi s ap pe al

. Thi s ap pe al di ve st ed th e di st ric t co ur t of co nt ro l

to pr od uc e th e le tt er be cau se W eb st er sp ecu la te s th e le tt er i s ex cu lp at or y an d hi s

ap pe al ot he rwis e co nt es ts hi s co nv ic ti on

. Se e id

. The di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y de ni ed

th e m ot io n. Se e Fed. R. Crim. P. 37 (a )(2 ) (“ If a ti m el y m ot io n is m ad e fo r rel ie f th at

th e co ur t la ck s au th or it y to gr an t be cau se of an ap pe al th at ha s be en do ck et ed an d is

pe nd in g, t he co ur t m ay

. . . de ny the m ot io n . . . .”).

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

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

-1 0-