Opinion ID: 525028
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Equal Protection and Due Process Claim

Text: 30 Both William Gaddis and Barnetta Gaddis claim that their constitutional rights were violated when the district court refused to preclude the government from calling Barnetta's handwriting expert, retained under Rule 17(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as a witness. Unfortunately, there is not a clear factual record of the precise circumstances giving rise to this issue. However, based on the transcripts of the trial, the parties' briefs, an affidavit filed by Barnetta Gaddis' attorney, and the comments made by counsel at oral argument, we have managed to put together some of the pieces to this incomplete puzzle. 31 During pretrial discovery, Barnetta realized that the government was going to use a handwriting expert to testify that she had written on one of the cards and both envelopes that William Gaddis received in prison. Thus, Barnetta searched for a handwriting expert of her own in order to rebut this testimony. After great difficulty, Barnetta located an expert, Richard L. Shipp, who was willing to provide assistance. Barnetta, however, could not afford to pay his fee. Therefore, she sought government financial aid in retaining Shipp pursuant to Rule 17(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 3 32 On or about August 6, 1987, Barnetta Gaddis' attorney, Douglas D. Small, allegedly filed a Rule 17(b) motion and a supporting memorandum in order to retain Shipp. Because Rule 17(b) allows for an ex parte application, Small did not serve a copy of these documents on the government. Later that day, a law clerk for Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr. called Small. She told him that the motion was unacceptable and that he would have to serve a copy on the government. At oral argument, Small was unable to recall whether the law clerk indicated that she was acting pursuant to Judge Miller's request. Neither the record or the district court's docket sheet contains any reference to this alleged filing, or its rejection by the district court. 4 33 The next day Small refiled the motion and supporting memorandum and served a copy of them on the government. The district court granted the motion, and Barnetta retained Shipp as her handwriting expert. From these documents, the government learned who Barnetta sought to retain as an expert and why she wished to retain him. 34 Shipp examined the cards and envelopes in the government's possession and determined that Barnetta was the probable author. As a result of this conclusion, Barnetta did not plan to call Shipp as an expert witness. At trial, however, the government asked Small if he intended to call Shipp as a witness. When Small stated that he would not be calling Shipp, the government indicated that it would call Shipp as a rebuttal witness against Barnetta. Small then made a motion for a mistrial or for an order precluding the government from calling Shipp as a witness. William apparently did not join in these motions. The district court denied both motions. The court, however, noted that it was not ruling that Shipp would be an appropriate rebuttal witness for the government to call since any ruling on that issue would be premature. 35 At this point, Barnetta was faced with the dilemma of either calling Shipp herself, in order to try to minimize the damaging nature of his testimony, or allowing the government to call him on rebuttal. As a tactical decision, Barnetta chose to call Shipp as a witness, and he testified that Barnetta was the probable author of the writing on one of the cards and on both envelopes.
36 On appeal, Barnetta argues that she was invidiously discriminated against because of her indigency in violation of the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the Constitution. She argues that a wealthy defendant can contact numerous experts without having to inform the government; only when the wealthy defendant intends to call an expert as a witness at trial does he need to notify the government about the expert. Thus, Barnetta claims that an indigent defendant should be able to retain an expert pursuant to Rule 17(b) without notifying the government, unless the indigent defendant intends to call the expert as a witness. 37 Barnetta contends that the government found out about her expert solely because the district court erroneously required her to serve a copy of her 17(b) motion and supporting memorandum on the government. If she was not indigent, she would not have needed to file a 17(b) motion, and thus the government would not have found out about Shipp. Barnetta further argues that, contrary to the government's claim, the government would not have independently found out about Shipp because she would have had Shipp make a preliminary determination based on photocopies of the cards and envelopes which the government produced during discovery; thus, there would have been no need for Shipp to have contacted the government to see the originals. Therefore, Barnetta argues that the district court should have precluded the government from calling Shipp as a witness, and its failure to do so violated her constitutional rights because a wealthy defendant would never find himself in this predicament. 38 Of course, the government strongly contests Barnetta's claim that her constitutional rights were violated. The government argues that the district court properly refused to make an advanced ruling on rebuttal testimony. The government further argues that because the district court did not make a definitive ruling on whether the government could call Shipp as a rebuttal witness, Barnetta waived her right to appeal this issue by calling Shipp as a witness at trial. Finally, the government claims that if the district court erred, such error was harmless. 39 Barnetta raises a very serious and important issue. Unfortunately, because the record is incomplete, we cannot give a proper resolution to this thorny issue. Therefore, we remand Barnetta's case back to the district court and instruct the court to hold an evidentiary hearing concerning the alleged filing of Barnetta's first Rule 17(b) motion. Hopefully, in this evidentiary hearing, the district court will be able to elicit information which will provide answers to the following questions: (1) Did Barnetta's counsel try to file a Rule 17(b) motion in an ex parte manner? (2) With whom did he try to file it, and what action was taken? (3) Did the district court judge authorize his law clerk to reject this filing? (4) Why was this filing rejected? Other similar relevant questions may also be answered at the discretion of the district judge. At this evidentiary hearing, the district court should feel free to state on the record his own recollection of relevant evidence, and he need not disqualify himself on this ground. Our panel shall retain jurisdiction over Barnetta's case; therefore, the district court should submit the transcript of the hearing and its findings to our court so that we can properly dispose of Barnetta's appeal on this issue.
40 William claims that his constitutional rights were also violated by the district court's denial of Barnetta's motion to preclude the government from calling Shipp as a witness. 5 He argues that because the cards were addressed to him, Shipp's testimony was highly prejudicial to him. William's contention is without merit. 41 First, at trial William apparently did not join in Barnetta's motion to preclude the government from calling Shipp as a witness. The failure of William to raise this issue in the district court results in a waiver of it on appeal. See United States v. Muskovsky, 863 F.2d 1319, 1323 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 1345, 103 L.Ed.2d 813 (1989); United States v. Carter, 720 F.2d 941, 945 (7th Cir.1983). 42 Second, even if William did not waive this issue on appeal, we would still reject his claim. William has failed to show that he was discriminated against because of his indigency. William would be in the exact same position even if he were a wealthy defendant. He cannot obtain a reversal of his conviction based on Barnetta's rights. Even if the district court made an error concerning Barnetta, that error does not automatically apply to William. William was only entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one. See Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 579, 106 S.Ct. 3101, 3107, 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986); Vega, 860 F.2d at 801.