Opinion ID: 6499796
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Wills’s Medical Records

Text: Wills testified at trial that he was diagnosed with herpes in 2006, six years before the abuse started. However, the district court excluded medical records from South Africa confirming this diagnosis because Wills failed to produce them despite the Government’s specific requests prior to and during trial. Wills argues that excluding this evidence deprived him of a meaningful 21 See generally United States v. Wall, 389 F.3d 457, 467 (5th Cir. 2004) (“As a general rule, there are five prerequisites (typically referred to as the Berry rule) that must be met to justify a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The defendant must prove that (1) the evidence is newly discovered and was unknown to the defendant at the time of trial; (2) the failure to detect the evidence was not due to a lack of diligence by the defendant; (3) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the evidence is material; and (5) the evidence if introduced at a new trial would probably produce an acquittal.” (footnote and citations omitted)). The district court held that Wills failed to establish the third and fifth elements. 22 See, e.g., United States v. Hoffman, 901 F.3d 523, 552 n.16 (5th Cir. 2018) (“Failure on appeal to adequately brief an issue waives it.”); United States v. Beaumont, 972 F.2d 553, 563 (5th Cir. 1992) (merely asserting in appellate brief that evidence was insufficient to convict without providing any argument to support the contention renders the issue abandoned). 10 Case: 20-40648 Document: 00516392374 Page: 11 Date Filed: 07/13/2022 No. 20-40648 opportunity to present a complete defense because the medical records showed that he carried a highly communicable sexually transmitted disease that was not detected in Jane by the SANE (sexual assault nurse examiner) examination. 23 He further claims that Criminal Procedure Rule 16(b), which governs a defendant’s reciprocal discovery obligations, did not require him to produce these records until the day he actually testified. As discussed above, the right to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense is not limitless. The defendant must, for example, “comply with established rules of . . . evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.” 24 Rule 16(a) gives a criminal defendant the option to demand that the Government produce certain categories of documents before trial. 25 When a defendant avails himself of this option, it triggers a reciprocal right in the prosecution to request the same categories of documents that the defendant “intends to use” in his case-in-chief. 26 There is no dispute that Wills sought and received discovery from the Government and the Government specifically requested his medical records before trial. Wills argues only that he did not “intend to use” these records in his case-in-chief until he decided to waive his Fifth Amendment right to silence and testify at trial, and he did not make that decision until after the Government presented its case. Thus, Wills claims he was under no obligation to produce these documents until the day he determined he would, and did, testify. 23 The Government is quick to point out that the SANE exam did not actually test Jane for herpes. 24 Piper, 912 F.3d at 854 (quoting John, 597 F.3d at 276–77 (omission in original)). 25 Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E)–(F). 26 Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(A)(ii), (B)(ii). 11 Case: 20-40648 Document: 00516392374 Page: 12 Date Filed: 07/13/2022 No. 20-40648 Several district courts have rejected this argument. 27 Those courts reasoned that the privilege against self-incrimination does not exempt a defendant from his reciprocal discovery obligation; a defendant may not avail himself of discovery from the Government and then condition his reciprocal compliance on his decision whether to testify. 28 We agree. Accordingly, we hold that Wills violated his reciprocal discovery obligation by not timely producing the South African medical records. Arguing in the alternative, Wills contends that even if he did violate Rule 16(b), our decision in United States v. Davis 29 holds that the Sixth Amendment forbids the exclusion of otherwise admissible evidence solely as a sanction to enforce the discovery rules or orders. We rejected a nearly identical argument in United States v. Lundy. 30 There we cited the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Taylor v. Illinois for the proposition that there are instances where preclusion is an appropriate remedy. 31 In other words, Lundy recognized that Taylor abrogated Davis’s holding that the Sixth Amendment prohibits exclusion for discovery violations. 32 Furthermore, Lundy upheld the district court’s decision to exclude the defendant’s expert 27 United States v. Huntress, No. 13-CV-199S, 2015 WL 631976, at  (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2015); United States v. Seldon, No. 2:07-CR-0135, 2008 WL 11384195, at  (D. Nev. Oct. 20, 2008), aff’d, 462 F. App’x 735 (9th Cir. 2011) (unpublished); United States v. Warner, No. 02-CR-506, 2005 WL 2367769, at  (N.D. Ill. Sept. 23, 2005), aff’d, 498 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v. Ryan, 448 F. Supp. 810, 811 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 594 F.2d 853 (2d Cir. 1978) (unpublished table decision). 28 See, e.g., Seldon, 2008 WL 11384195, at  (citing Ryan, 448 F. Supp. at 811). 29 639 F.2d 239, 243 (5th Cir. Unit B Mar. 1981). 30 676 F.3d 444, 451 (5th Cir. 2012). 31 Id. (citing Taylor, 484 U.S. at 413). 32 Id. at 451–52. Indeed, Taylor “rejected petitioner’s argument that a preclusion sanction is never appropriate no matter how serious the defendant’s discovery violation may be.” 484 U.S. at 416. 12 Case: 20-40648 Document: 00516392374 Page: 13 Date Filed: 07/13/2022 No. 20-40648 witness—a more severe remedy than excluding a single document that is cumulative of the witness’s testimony—after the defendant failed to provide the Government with a summary of the expert’s testimony as required under Rule 16(b)(1)(C). 33 We review a district court’s decision to exclude evidence as a sanction for violating a discovery rule or pretrial order for abuse of discretion. 34 Aside from arguing that exclusion is never appropriate, Wills does not contend that the district court abused its discretion when it excluded his medical records. Consequently, we treat the issue as waived and leave undisturbed the district court’s decision to exclude these documents. 35