Opinion ID: 222406
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Examination of Gabrion by Government Psychiatrist and Testimony in Rebuttal Concerning Gabrion's Mental Health Evidence as Mitigation

Text: Gabrion contends that he was prejudiced when the prosecution was permitted to call expert witness Dr. Gregory Saathoff to testify in rebuttal during the penalty phase of the trial because Gabrion did not have adequate notice of Dr. Saathoff's testimony. Specifically, Gabrion argues that the examination itself was untimely because it was not conducted until March 8, 2002, between the conclusion of the guilt phase and two days before the start of the penalty phase. Gabrion also contends that the production of Dr. Saathoff's testimony on March 13, 2002, two days into the penalty phase of the trial, was untimely. Gabrion also argues that Dr. Saathoff's rebuttal testimony was prejudicial and outside of the scope of the testimony Gabrion provided. As to the timeliness of the examination and the production of the report, the government filed a discovery request for mental health evidence and for a psychological examination on January 18, 2002a little over a month before the guilt phase of the trial commenced and in response to defendant's notice indicating he might raise mental health issues at both the trial and penalty phases. On February 4, 2002, defendant filed an amended notice of his intention to introduce mental health testimony through five doctors. In response to Gabrion's notice that he intended to utilize five mental health experts, the government sought four additional examinations of Gabrion by mental health experts. The District Court granted the request only as to Dr. Saathoff and indicated that it would strictly limit Dr. Saathoff's rebuttal testimony to that evidence to which the door was opened by Gabrion first. Dr. Saathoff examined Gabrion on March 8, 2002, the first day that Gabrion was available due to the necessity that he prepare for and attend the guilt phase of the trial. We find that Dr. Saathoff's examination and report were timely. Once the District Court had ruled that Dr. Saathoff could examine Gabrion, an examination took place on one of the first dates that Gabrion was available, which was during the break between the guilt and penalty phases of the trial. Defense counsel received Dr. Saathoff's report on March 13, five days after the examination. During the break between the guilt and penalty phases defense counsel was also submitting supplemental reports and records. There is no indication in the record that the government delayed in its request to examine Gabrion or that Gabrion was caught off guard by the contents of Dr. Saathoff's report. Defense counsel had adequate time to prepare to cross-examine Dr. Saathoff on the contents of his report. As to Gabrion's argument that Dr. Saathoff's rebuttal testimony was prejudicial and outside the scope of the case-in-chief testimony because it highlighted Gabrion's history of violence toward women and animals, we disagree. Gabrion presented numerous mitigation witnesses, including four mental health experts. While the mitigation evidence was designed to demonstrate Gabrion's poor upbringing, lack of appreciation for the wrongfulness of his conduct, and the existence of mental health issues due to injuries sustained in car accidents, the mitigation evidence also downplayed Gabrion's future dangerousness, especially toward women. Instead, Gabrion was described simply as nerdish and not a discipline problem. The government sought to rebut the rather mild image presented during the penalty phase and show instead a man with a violent and cruel nature who could be a threat to prison staff and other inmates. Dr. Saathoff also opined that Gabrion was a malingerer to rebut the findings of two of Gabrion's mental health experts. Even if some isolated remarks by Dr. Saathoff went beyond the scope of Gabrion's mitigation testimony, Dr. Saathoff's testimony as a whole was a fair rebuttal of Gabrion's mitigation evidence and did not unfairly prejudice Gabrion.
Gabrion contends that the government withheld evidence of an ethics complaint filed against Dr. Thomas Ryan, a rebuttal expert for the government in the penalty phase, that would have impeached his testimony. Gabrion also contends that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated by the District Court's refusal to allow defense counsel to cross-examine Dr. Ryan about the ethics complaint. The complaint was a letter filed by a psychologist with the American Psychological Association regarding Dr. Ryan's consulting work in an unrelated capital case. The substance of the complaint was that Dr. Ryan filed an expert report in a Maryland capital case diagnosing the defendant as a dangerous psychopath without conducting a clinical interview of the defendant. Instead, Dr. Ryan had used records to score the defendant on the Hare's Psychopathy Checklist. At the time, the methodology conformed to professional standards and had been used in multiple capital cases. However, in light of objections by the defendant in the Maryland case to the use of the Hare Checklist, Dr. Ryan withdrew his report. At the time of Gabrion's trial in the District Court, the American Psychological Association had not commenced a formal ethics investigation against Dr. Ryan concerning the complaint by a fellow psychologist. The Association had requested a response from Dr. Ryan, which was received by the Association in October 2001. Although defense counsel did not have the actual complaint or Dr. Ryan's response, it was aware of the substance of the documents and the fact that the American Psychological Association had not yet adjudicated the issue. Accordingly, the District Court found that, at most, there was a professional dispute between two psychologists in a collateral matter that was not probative of Dr. Ryan's truthfulness. The District Court also correctly found that examination by defense counsel of Dr. Ryan about an unsubstantiated and unadjudicated matter was not proper and would only confuse the jury, especially as the Hare Psychopathy Checklist had not been administered to Gabrion. We agree with the District Court's decision and reasoning for not allowing the use of the unsubstantiated and unadjudicated ethics complaint and find no error on this issue.
Gabrion argues that the District Court erred by engaging in a lopsided jury selection process in which prospective jurors who expressed pro-death penalty views were empaneled, while their anti-death penalty counterparts with equally strong opposing views were struck for cause. In essence, Gabrion's argument is that the District Court's systematically uneven treatment of prospective jurors violated his constitutional right to an unbiased jury under the Sixth Amendment. [12] A criminal defendant has the right to an impartial jury drawn from a venire that has not been tilted in favor of capital punishment by selective prosecutorial challenges for cause. Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U.S. 1, 9, 127 S.Ct. 2218, 167 L.Ed.2d 1014 (2007) (citing Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 521, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968)). [A] juror who is substantially impaired in his or her ability to impose the death penalty under the [statutory death-penalty] framework can be excused for cause; but if the juror is not substantially impaired, removal for cause is impermissible. Id. (citing Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985)). Although Uttecht, Witt, and Witherspoon involved challenges to anti-death penalty jurors, the rule of substantial impairment applies equally to prospective jurors whose attitudes rest at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum. See Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 728-29, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992) (applying Witt to reverse a death sentence due to the empaneling of a single pro-death penalty juror). If jurors who initially express some doubts about the death penalty are excused for cause but jurors who initially express a preference or inclination in favor of the death penalty in murder cases are accepted, as occurred in the instant case, the jury cannot be a representative cross-section of the community. The Supreme Court has recently made jury sentencing a constitutional requirement. Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). Juries have plenary power to choose between life and death in these cases. Thus the way the jury is selected may become the most important determinant of the sentencing outcome. Both the people who have no scruples about the use of the death penalty and those who have serious doubts are part of the people whose will the jury is designed to represent in our legal system. [A] jury that must choose between life imprisonment and capital punishment can do little moreand must do nothing lessthan express the conscience of the community on the ultimate question of life or death. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 519, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968). The community is deeply divided on the death penalty. See David Garland, Peculiar Institution: America's Death Penalty In An Age of Abolition, 36-55 (2010). If strenuously pro-death penalty jurors are going to be permitted, jurors who lean against the death penalty should not be removed for cause. Otherwise, such a lopsided jury can hardly express the will of the people. In light of these principles, Gabrion's argument has some force. In written responses to questionnaires and orally during voir dire, three prospective jurors expressed strong personal views in favor of death sentences for all convicted murderers, [13] and three prospective jurors expressed equally strong personal views against the death penalty. [14] All six prospective jurors made statements that unmistakably suggested that their deeply held personal viewseither for or against the death penalty, respectivelywould prevent them from faithfully applying the nuanced statutory system of weighing aggravators and mitigators during the penalty phase. But when pushed by the district judge or counsel, all six equivocated and stated that they could temporarily put aside their personal beliefs, listen to evidence, or weigh the statutory aggravators and mitigators. The responses of the six jurors presented near-perfect symmetry on both ends of the ideological spectrum: three pro death-penalty (but equivocating) jurors, and three anti-death penalty (but equivocating) jurors. But while the revealed attitudes of the prospective jurors were symmetrical, the District Court's treatment of them was not. The District Court struck all three of the anti-death penalty jurors for cause over Gabrion's objection, but it empaneled all three of the pro-death penalty jurors despite Gabrion's motion to strike for cause. The District Court reasoned that two of the anti-death penalty jurors equivocated, and that the other one was guilty of fuzzy thinking. Regarding their three pro-death penalty counterparts, the District Court was silent on the equivocation of one and attributed the inconsistent responses of the two others to their lack of a college education. We are troubled by the appearance of uneven treatment in how the District Court handled the pro-death penalty and anti-death penalty jurors during the jury selection process. [15] Of course, the determination of whether a prospective juror's attitude regarding the death penalty will substantially impair him from applying the statutory penalty-phase framework involves some inferences that cannot be made from a bare transcript alone. [T]he trial court makes a judgment based in part on the demeanor of the juror, a judgment owed deference by reviewing courts. Uttecht, 551 U.S. at 9, 127 S.Ct. 2218. But when the transcript suggests systematically uneven treatment of equivocating pro-and anti-death penalty jurors, it is increasingly unlikely that the sole culprit is differences in the demeanor of those jurors. We need not definitively resolve the issue in this case, however, because any error affected only the penalty phase of the trial, [16] and we are already reversing the District Court and remanding for a new penalty phase on the independent ground of improperly excluding relevant mitigating evidence.
Gabrion next asserts that the Federal Death Penalty Act is facially unconstitutional, because it provides that the Federal Rules of Evidence (the Rules) do not apply to material presented by the parties during the penalty phase of a death penalty trial. This issue is one of first impression in this Circuit, but every other circuit which has confronted it has rejected this argument and upheld the Act. See United States v. Fulks, 454 F.3d 410, 437 (4th Cir.2006); United States v. Lee, 374 F.3d 637, 648-49 (8th Cir.2004); United States v. Fell, 360 F.3d 135, 140-46 (2d Cir.2004); United States v. Jones, 132 F.3d 232, 241-42 (5th Cir.1998). We join those circuits, reject Gabrion's argument, and decline to find the Act unconstitutional on this basis. The Act provides in relevant part that during the penalty phase of a death penalty trial, [i]nformation is admissible regardless of its admissibility under the rules governing admission of evidence at criminal trials except that information may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of creating unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury. 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c). Gabrion's principal argument is that this evidentiary standard's constitutionality is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's reasoning in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). Ring invalidated Arizona's death penalty statutewhich provided that, after a capital defendant was found guilty by a jury, the trial judge himself would find aggravating factors required for the imposition of the death penalty sentenceas unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. Ring, 536 U.S. at 588-89, 122 S.Ct. 2428. The core holding of Ring is that where a death penalty statute requires aggravating facts to be found before the death penalty is imposed, those facts must be found by a jury, not by a judge. Id. at 609, 122 S.Ct. 2428. Gabrion asks us to extend this reasoning one step further and hold that those aggravating facts must, as a constitutional matter, be proven to the jury using evidence admissible under the Rules. He is apparently raising this constitutional argument for the first time on appeal, and so our review is for plain error. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); United States v. Murphy, 241 F.3d 447, 450-51 (6th Cir.2001). Gabrion's argument consciously takes as its inspiration a decision of the District Court in United States v. Fell, 217 F.Supp.2d 469 (D.Vt.2002), rev'd, 360 F.3d 135 (2d Cir.2004), which found the relevant provision of the Act unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. That decision was reversed in a thorough and well-reasoned opinion of the Second Circuit, and we largely follow their analysis in disposing of Gabrion's argument in the instant matter. We begin by noting that the Federal Rules of Evidence are not a collection of constitutional rules: the limitations on the introduction of evidence presented by the Rules are not coextensive with the limitations required by the Constitution. See Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 352-54, 110 S.Ct. 668, 107 L.Ed.2d 708 (1990) (finding, in the admission of evidence at trial, an error under the Rules, but declining to find a constitutional error); Fell, 360 F.3d at 144-45 (following this reading of Dowling and other cases and concluding that [the Rules] establish neither the floor nor the ceiling of constitutionally permissible evidence). Where a given evidentiary rule is not inconsistent with a constitutional principle, Congress retains the ultimate authority to modify or set [it] aside. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 437, 120 S.Ct. 2326, 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000). In the Federal Death Penalty Act, Congress enacted an evidentiary standard governing the penalty phase of capital prosecutions that provided that the Rules do not apply, and left only one limitation on the admission of information (notably, the relevant provision does not even speak of evidence): that information may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of creating unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury. 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c). Gabrion on appeal argues that the constitutional principle with which this provision is inconsistent (and therefore outside of Congress's authority to enact) is the one announced in Ring: that aggravating factors, the proof of which is part of the business of the penalty phase, must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The link between Ring, which concerned primarily the identity of the trier of fact and not the standards limiting the material introduced before it, and Gabrion's present argument is reliability: Gabrion argues that, since Ring required proof of aggravating factors to be made to a jury and not to a judge, that proof should be reliable, and reliability would best be guaranteed by Rules, which govern other matters proven before juries in federal court. Concerns about reliability are obviously at their apogee when the determination is literally one of life and death, as is the case in capital sentencing proceedings. See, e.g., Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (stating that [the] qualitative difference between death and other penalties calls for a greater degree of reliability when the death sentence is imposed). The problem with Gabrion's argument is his contention that, in the capital sentencing context, the Rules are the only means of assuring reliability, so much so that their application is constitutionally required. On the contrary, the unique context of the penalty phasethe ultimate object of which is not the determination of the objective fact of the defendant's guilt or innocence but the much more abstract, irreducibly moral determination of whether an individual, already adjudicated guilty, deserves mercy or deathpresents distinct reliability concerns that could be plausibly thought to merit a different, much broader set of limitations on what information may be considered. The Supreme Court has long recognized this to be the case. See, e.g., Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 204, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (We think it desirable for the jury to have as much information before it as possible when it makes the sentencing decision.); Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 246, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949) (noting the sound practical reasons for having different evidentiary rules govern[] trial and sentencing procedures). What may distract a jury in the guilt phase from its narrow determination of guilt or innocencea defendant's good or bad character, as demonstrated through prior acts, for examplemay be vital to its determination of whether the particular guilty defendant before it deserves society's ultimate punishment. Accordingly, Congress's decision to relax the evidentiary standard for this specific purpose is no constitutional defect. Gabrion also contends that the Act may only be deemed constitutional if we create a new federal capital murder offense that would treat the aggravating factors as elements of the offense, as, he argues, is required by Ring. He continues that we should not create such an offense, citing principles of constitutional avoidance, separation of powers, and the longstanding proscription against the creation of common law crimes. A similar argument was raised and rejected by the Eighth Circuit in United States v. Lee, 374 F.3d 637, 648-49 (8th Cir.2004), and we reject it here as well. We do not need to construe the Act as creating a new offense not already specified; as stated above, the Act complies with Ring by requiring aggravating facts to be found by a jury, not by a judge.