Opinion ID: 1252224
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Refusal to Subpoena Dr. Silverman.[10]

Text: Olhovsky first argues that the district court erred in refusing to subpoena Dr. Silverman to testify at the sentencing hearing. Olhovsky claims that the district court fundamentally misunderstood its own powers when it concluded that experts could not be subpoenaed to testify. He also argues that Dr. Silverman's absence resulted in significant prejudice. However, it is not clear whether Olhovsky is arguing that the prejudicial error amounts to a violation of due process, an abuse of discretion, or both. A district court's decision to admit or exclude evidence at sentencing is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 330 n. 9 (3d Cir.2006). However, we review legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Cepero, 224 F.3d 256, 258 (3d Cir.2000). Cf. Citizens Financial Group, Inc. v. Citizens Nat. Bank of Evans City, 383 F.3d 110, 132-33 (3d Cir.2004) (To the extent the district court's admission of evidence was based on an interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence, our standard of review is plenary.) (quoting United States v. Pelullo, 964 F.2d 193, 199 (3d Cir.1992)). To its credit, the government does not attempt to defend the district court's conclusion that expert witnesses are not subject to the court's subpoena power. Rather, the government argues that any error was harmless because Dr. Silverman's letter was introduced at sentencing and available to the court. The government also points out that the district court expressly invited defense counsel to have Dr. Silverman appear voluntarily and/or submit supplemental written materials and he did not do so. [11] The government further notes that Olhovsky did submit two reports from other experts who generally agreed with Dr. Silverman's assessments and argues that any further submissions or testimony from Dr. Silverman would merely have been cumulative. Finally, the government emphasizes the sentencing judge's historic discretion in determining what (if any) live testimony to allow at sentencing, and then invites us to assume that even absent any error, the district court would have exercised that discretion and refused to subpoena Dr. Silverman. However, it is clear that the district court committed legal error in concluding that it could not subpoena Dr. Silverman to testify at Olhovsky's sentencing hearing. As noted earlier, in explaining its refusal to subpoena Dr. Silverman for the sentencing, the court stated [t]here is one basic rule, which is generally applied to expert witnesses in both the civil and criminal context, which is one cannot be subpoenaed to give expert testimony, one can only be subpoenaed to give fact testimony. (App.93.) As a threshold matter, we do not think that Silverman would have been testifying as an expert witness. Rather, he would have testified primarily as a fact witness and informed the court of Olhovsky's attitude and progress in treatment. To the extent that Silverman may have been required to offer an opinion as an expert, we see nothing that precluded him from doing so. Further, the court's legal basis for that statement is not clear, nor have we been able to independently determine the basis for that one basic rule. Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs the issuance of subpoenas in criminal cases. That rule does not place any limit or qualification on witnesses who may be subpoenaed. Not surprisingly, the government has been unable to direct us to any case that would support the district court's very broad ruling. At oral argument, while not conceding that the district court made an error of law, the government did suggest that perhaps the district court was referring to Fed.R.Civ.P. 45. However, that Rule is not relevant to a criminal proceeding and it would not support the court's ruling even if it did apply. [12] Moreover, any suggestion that the court's subpoena power is limited in this manner would be inconsistent with the government's concomitant attempt to rely on the sentencing court's broad discretion to hear witnesses during the sentencing phase. Accordingly, we conclude that the court's determination that it could not allow Dr. Silverman to be subpoenaed for the sentencing hearing was erroneous. The more difficult part of our inquiry is whether Olhovsky was prejudiced by that error since he was able to introduce Dr. Silverman's letter as well as the reports of other behavioral experts. Nevertheless, despite his ability to present that evidence, given the justifiable and stringent concerns of the district court about public safety, the possibility of recidivism, and whether Olhovsky could be a a pedophile monster, we can not conclude that this error of law was harmless. According to our traditional harmless error standard, a non-constitutional error is harmless when it is highly probable that the error did not prejudice the defendant. `High probability' requires that the court possess a `sure conviction that the error did not prejudice' the defendant. United States v. Langford, 516 F.3d 205, 215 (3d Cir.2008) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Duckro, 466 F.3d 438, 446 (6th Cir.2006) ([W]here a district court makes a mistake in calculating a guidelines range for purposes of determining a sentence under section 3553(a), we are required to remand for resentencing unless we are certain that any such error was harmless-i.e. any such error did not affect the district court's selection of the sentence imposed.) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). After reviewing the sentencing transcript we are unable to conclude that it is highly probable that the district court would have imposed the same sentence given an opportunity to discuss its concerns with Dr. Silverman, Olhovsky's treating psychologist. This is particularly true given the extraordinarily favorable nature of other reports by behavioral experts who examined or evaluated Olhovsky. Dr. Silverman had treated and observed Olhovsky for approximately two years immediately preceding the sentencing. Insofar as can be determined on this record, it appears that Dr. Silverman was responsible for the only behavioral therapy Olhovsky has ever had. As noted above, both the court and the government's expert expressed concerns about Olhovsky's potential for recidivism. As also noted above, the court went so far as to opine that Olhovsky could turn around and become again a predator  a pedophile monster. Given the severity of that concern and its obvious implication for the safety of society that is part of the inquiry under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), we can not conclude that the court would have imposed the same sentence if it had a chance to speak directly with Olhovsky's treating psychologist, pose those concerns and evaluate Dr. Silverman's responses. Moreover, given the very positive response to treatment that the court either overlooked or ignored, it is difficult for us to see how the court could have continued to view Olhovsky as some kind of pedophile monster after addressing those concerns to Dr. Silverman. Such an interaction would have provided an additional basis for the district court to evaluate the favorable and optimistic reports of Drs. Witt and Heilbrun, neither of whom was Olhovsky's treating psychologist. The district court expressed persistent doubts about Olhovsky's psycho-social prognosis. The court noted: He's young and as the psychologists have admitted, they don't know what he's going to do. He certainly has indicated pedophile proclivities in the past and they can't tell me whether or not he will be a pedophile in the future. (App.230.) Obviously, no health care professional can ever give a prognosis with absolute certainty. Everyone's behavior is subject to far too many nuanced subtleties, complexities and uncertainties to allow for any such predictions. Given the concerns that the court expressed at sentencing, and its concerns about this category of offender, we will not ignore the potential force of a conversation with a treating psychologist specializing in the treatment of sex offenders who had been treating Olhovsky for almost two years. Given our discussion, it should be clear that we are not persuaded that the legal error was cured by the district court's invitation to defense counsel to have Dr. Silverman testify voluntarily. As mentioned above, we are also not convinced that the prejudicial error was mitigated by the court's statement that if Dr. Silverman wished to testify the court would work it out with Pretrial Services. (App.95.) Pretrial Services had taken the position that Dr. Silverman would breach his contract by testifying, and it certainly appears that he could only try to work things out if he were willing to risk future employment. In holding that the district court committed prejudicial legal error in refusing to subpoena Dr. Silverman we are mindful of the wide discretion historically afforded sentencing courts. We note however, that although the district court refused to subpoena Dr. Silverman, the court stated: if he personally wishes to testify, he can testify, .... [13] Accordingly, the court did not rule that it would not allow Dr. Silverman to personally address the court. On the contrary, the court stated that it would allow such testimony, but then refused to issue a subpoena which, as we have explained, was the only way the court could have had the benefit of that testimony. Whatever Dr. Silverman's personal preferences might have been, the court would not have the benefit of his testimony absent a subpoena because of the resistance of Pretrial Services. This entire situation is even more perplexing because we can find nothing in Dr. Silverman's contract with Pretrial Services that prohibits someone in Dr. Silverman's position from appearing at sentencing when volunteering to do so and when the defendant does not object. In fact, the contract at issue seems to anticipate this very situation by stating: [t]he vendor shall ... [a]ppear or testify in legal proceedings convened by the federal court or Parole Commission only (a) [u]pon request of the federal court, United States Probation and Pretrial Services Offices, United States Attorney's Offices, or United States Parole Commission, or (b) [i]n response to a subpoena. (App.76). We conclude therefore, that the district court's erroneous denial of defense counsel's request for a subpoena to Olhovsky's treating psychologist was not harmless. [14]