Court Opinion

ID: 9491145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:05:03.362647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:32.448122
License: Public Domain

BEAM, Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I dissent from the holding in Part I of the court’s opinion and from a result that will return this case to the state court for a third trial, or, in the alternative, for Barrett’s release.
In the state court proceeding that we review, the Iowa Supreme Court said “[tjhis was a second trial. Two juries have unanimously agreed on defendant’s guilt____ Defendant was superbly represented at trial and on appeal. He received a fair, if not absolutely perfect, trial. He is not entitled to a third one.” State v. Barrett, 445 N.W.2d 749, 754 (Iowa 1989). I agree.
First, my review of the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision reveals no explicit holding that Dr. DiMaio’s testimony was improper hearsay. Although the Iowa Supreme Court stated that it was “inclined to disapprove” the testimony, it expressly deferred considering whether the statement “amounted to abuse requiring reversal.” Id. at 751. The discussion centered around whether there was foundation for the statement as part of the basis for the expert’s opinion. See id at 752. The only intimation that the Court regarded the statement as hearsay is that it discussed the hearsay rule in connection with its harmless error analysis. See id. at 751. My reading is that the Iowa Supreme Court stopped short of finding that the statement was hearsay, but determined that even if the statement amounted to hearsay, its admission would nonetheless amount to harmless error.
If the Iowa Supreme Court had made an explicit finding on the issue, we would arguably be bound by that evidentiary ruling. See Clark v. Groose, 16 F.3d 960, 963 (8th Cir.1994). But where, as here, there has been no definite ruling on whether the statement in fact amounts to hearsay, this court is free to revisit the evidentiary matter for purposes of our Confrontation Clause and harmless error analyses. This is also likely true even with an explicit evidentiary ruling since we deal with a federal constitutional issue in a federal habeas corpus action. Proceeding accordingly, it is clear to me that we should reverse the district court and remand for dismissal of Barrett’s petition.
Since the evidentiary question will influence the issue of harmless error, I begin with the admissibility analysis. First, I do not believe that the statement in question is hearsay. Under both the Federal Rules of *464Evidence and the Iowa Rules of Evidence, hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Iowa R. Evid. 801(c); Fed.R.Evid. 801(c). Therefore, by definition, an out-of-court statement is not hearsay if it is not offered to prove the facts asserted. See Roberts v. Newville, 554 N.W.2d 298, 300 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). A common type of statement which falls outside the hearsay definition because it is not offered for its truth is one offered to show effect on the recipient of the statement. See id. Thus, an out-of-court statement which is offered to reveal the recipient’s state of mind is not inadmissible hearsay. See id.
In this case, the evidentiary value of the statements made to Dr. DiMaio was not their truth, but rather their effect on Dr. DiMaio. Dr. DiMaio did not, as Barrett claims, recite opinions of his colleagues without providing Barrett the opportunity to confront and cross-examine the individuals. Indeed, after stating that it is common practice in forensic medicine to discuss findings and conclusions with associates, Dr. DiMaio was asked if any of his colleagues “[had] given [him] persuasive reason to disregard [DiMaio’s] opinion.” Jt.App. Vol. I at 87. In other words, after these discussions, what was Dr. DiMaio’s state of mind?
An examination of the testimony in context shows that it was intended to reveal Dr. DiMaio’s state of mind. In his examination of the witness, Barrett’s counsel opened the door to this line of inquiry with the following colloquy:
Q. Does it matter to you today that you know that information that I’ve just given to you?
A. No, sir, because I told you my opinion’s that is [sic] homicide based upon the multiple factors involved.
Q. You don’t want to add that one factor in and change your opinion, do you?
A. I’ve already taken that into account, but- what I’m saying is — I’ve taken it into account. There is a scarf on the backseat, but it doesn’t mean any thing. What I’m saying is I’ve gone over the autopsy, I’ve gone over the scene photos, I’ve gone over all the materials supplied to me, and based on that, it’s my opinion it’s a homicide, and I listed the reasons why.
Q. And you reached that judgment on the 29th day of November and you haven’t changed it, have you?
A. Nothing has been presented to me since then to change the opinion.
Q. Then you’re not about to. You’re 99 percent right and you’re not about to change your opinion, are you, Doc?
A. I change my opinions when you present material to me to show that I am wrong and then I’ll change my opinion.
Jt.App. Vol. I at 82-83. This exchange was apparently pursued to show Dr. DiMaio’s reluctance to change his original opinion based on evidence that he might not have known when he formed the opinion.18 The prosecution countered by eliciting testimony, including the purported hearsay statement, that related to whether Dr. DiMaio regarded himself as “so inflexible or dogmatic that [he] would never change [his] opinion if presented with contrary evidence?” Jt.App. Vol. I at 83. The evidence clearly related to Dr. DiMaio’s state of mind and not to the truth of whatever the unexpressed, supposed-hearsay statements would reveal. Accordingly, the answer did not constitute hearsay at all and, thus, did not trigger a Sixth Amendment confrontation issue.19
*465Most importantly, I agree with the Iowa Supreme Court that, even if the statement were hearsay and it violated the Confrontation Clause, any error was harmless. See Harrington v. Iowa, 109 F.3d 1275, 1279 (8th Cir.1997) (holding that a violation of the Confrontation Clause can constitute harmless error). In habeas, the more deferential harmless error standard of Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (substantial or injurious effect or influence on the jury’s verdict) is applied to constitutional errors considered by state courts, but the strict standard set out in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) (harmless beyond a reasonable doubt) is used where the state court has not applied the Chapman analysis in the first instance. See Joubert v. Hopkins, 75 F.3d 1232, 1245 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1029, 116 S.Ct. 2574, 135 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1996). Although the Iowa Supreme Court conducted harmless error review on the hearsay issue, it is not clear that it reviewed Barrett’s claim for harmless constitutional error, applying the Chapman standard. It is not necessary to decide which standard applies here, however, because even under the stringent standard, I would find the admission. of the statement harmless “beyond a reasonable doubt.”20
Contrary to what the court states, this was not, in my view, a close case. The prosecution had assembled a solid case based on compelling circumstantial evidence. Barrett had purchased a $50,000 life insurance policy on the deceased Cynthia Walker. The policy contained a double indemnity clause in case of nonnatural death. The state offered evidence that Carol Willits purchased the murder (and ostensible suicide) weapon at Barrett’s request. The state further presented evidence that a car with rectangular headlights, similar to Barrett’s parents’ Buick, had been seen on the road where Walker died. There was also evidence that the blindfold used on Carol Willits was made of fabric similar to that found in pillowcases in Barrett’s parents’ home.
Although the court characterizes this ease as a “battle of the experts,” with Dr. DiMaio’s testimony being pivotal, my review of the record shows it was much more than that. The most damaging evidence, the admission of which the court affirms today, was contained in Barrett’s earlier journal. The 143-page handwritten journal details numerous plans and schemes to kill or maim his ex-wife, including plans to burn her face with acid. The journal is replete with drawings, diagrams and sketches of his sinister designs. In the journal, Barrett repeatedly refers to his need to get rid of his ex-wife. The state also showed that, contemporaneously with the inception of the journal, Bar- ■ rett had forged his ex-wife’s signature on an application for life insurance. This evidence tended to negate Barrett’s innocent explanation for his later purchase of insurance on the life of his then-girlfriend, Cynthia Walker. It is hard for me to imagine that the somewhat dry testimony of experts would overwhelm a jury in the face of such compelling evidence. In short, a reasonable juror would find the journal a persuasive reason to believe that the deaths were murders, committed by Barrett, separate and apart from what the experts testified.
The expert testimony is similarly availing to the prosecution. The prosecution presented Dr. DiMaio, who testified that, in his opinion, Carol Willits’s death was a homicide. He based his decision on six factors: 1) the presence of a blindfold, which he found highly unusual in a suicide; 2) the fact that the knot on the blindfold was tied on the left by a *466right-handed person; 3) the fact that she was wearing large cotton work gloves,' which would have made it difficult for her to tie the knot and which would have become bunched in the trigger of the gun; 4) the fact that Willits’s hand was found in her lap with the gun on top of her hand when the recoil of the gun should have sent the hand and the gun to the right; 5) the straight path of the bullet when in most suicides the path of the bullet is at an angle; and 6) the fact that there was an intact paper bag on the seat which should have been flattened by the gun. He emphasized that each of these factors, standing alone, could be discredited, but that his opinion was based on the presence of all six factors. Dr. DiMaio was skillfully cross-examined by Barrett’s counsel, who brought out the fact that Dr. DiMaio had formed his opinion on the first day he was contacted by authorities.
Three other expert witnesses testified that the death was a suicide. Each of these experts discredited the factors that Dr. DiMaio relied on in forming his opinion. Although each factor was discredited singly, there was no refutation of the fact that the factors in combination pointed to homicide. I find that Dr. DiMaio’s testimony is simply more persuasive, that is, it just' makes more sense, than the testimony of the other experts. I have no difficulty finding that the jury believed Dr. DiMaio over the others, without regard to any asserted bolstering of his testimony by unnamed supporters. I have reviewed the record of this case and, under the circumstances, I would find any error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
In conclusion, while I concur in Parts II, III and IV of the opinion, I believe that the court has found a very thin reed on which to support the habeas corpus release of a state prisoner fairly convicted in state court. I respectfully dissent to the result reached in Part I.
ORDER
July 28, 1998
Appellant/cross-appellee’s suggestion for rehearing en banc is granted. The Court’s opinion and judgment of May 5, 1998, are vacated.
The clerk is directed to set this case for oral argument before the court en banc at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 23,1998, in St. Louis, Missouri. Each side is granted twenty (20) minutes for oral argument.
Each side is directed to immediately submit twenty-five (25) additional copies of their previously filed briefs by August 10, 1998.

. Barrett’s attorney suggested that Willits had once told a roommate that if she ever killed herself she would use a blindfold. Jt.App. Vol. I at 81. As discussed infra, one of the factors that Dr. DiMaio relied on in forming his opinion was the fact that use of a blindfold in a suicide was, in his experience, rare. The jury was allowed to, and did, consider this "new evidence” in evaluating Dr. DiMaio’s credibility

. Even if the statement were regarded as hearsay, I would find that it does not violate the Confrontation Clause. The Confrontation Clause and the hearsay rule are not coextensive. See Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 62-65, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2537-39, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). Although both protect similar values, each sets independent prohibitions on admissibility. See id. A Confrontation Clause violation necessarily envisions an absent declarant whose statement is to be used against the defendant. As discussed above, no statement about which to confront an absent declarant was ever admitted.

. Oddly, the court today applies the Brecht standard, as modified by O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 115 S.Ct. 992, 130 L.Ed.2d 947 (1995), instead of the more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt" Chapman standard. , The court would have had an easier time justifying its decision to afford little deference to the state'court's harmless error finding under Chapman than under Brecht. The Brecht standard, .rooted in concerns of comity, requires more deference to state court findings than the court today affords it. See Brecht, 507 U.S. at 635-36, 113 S.Ct. at 1720-21. This controversy, however, is of little import to my discussion, except that it further dilutes the court’s opinion. Further, O’Neal only modifies Brecht in the in the "unusual" and "narrow circumstance” where we entertain "grave doubt" about whether trial constitutional error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict. O’Neal, 513 U.S. at 437, 115 S.Ct. at 995. “Grave doubt" means that the matter is so evenly balanced that a judge feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessncss of the error. See id.- This is not such a case. My review of the record here produces no doubts, much less grave doubts. As noted infra, the evidence in this case on harmlessness is not in virtual equipoise, but is weighted firmly in favor of the verdict.