United States v. Leon Seminole

Citations: 865 F.3d 1150; 2017 WL 3222926; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13819Docket: 16-30202

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; July 31, 2017; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the convictions of Leon Seminole for strangling and assaulting his wife, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(8) and 113(a)(7). The court affirmed the trial court's decision to compel the victim, Seminole's wife Maxine Limberhand, to testify against him, rejecting Seminole's argument that the precedent set in Trammel v. United States overruled Wyatt v. United States, which permits such compulsion in cases where the victim is a spouse. The factual background included a history of domestic issues between Seminole and Limberhand, culminating in an incident on August 17, 2014, where Limberhand was physically assaulted, resulting in significant injuries. Witness testimony and medical evidence at trial supported the charges against Seminole.

Limberhand was called as a witness by the government despite her clear reluctance to participate in the prosecution. She attempted to invoke the adverse spousal testimony privilege to avoid testifying, but the district court mandated her appearance. During her testimony, she contradicted earlier statements made to a BIA officer and a doctor, claiming she instigated the incident and that Seminole only tried to hug her. The prosecution undermined her credibility by presenting her prior statements that described an assault and strangulation. Ultimately, the jury convicted Seminole on both counts, resulting in concurrent 48-month sentences.

The court's review of the district court's decision to compel Limberhand's testimony is conducted de novo concerning the Federal Rules of Evidence. Federal common law recognizes two marital privileges: the adverse spousal testimony privilege and the marital communications privilege. The case revolves around the former, where the Supreme Court’s ruling in Wyatt v. United States established that a trial court may compel a spouse to testify against the other when the spouse is a victim of the crime. This long-standing "spouse as victim" exception to the privilege allows the court to compel testimony, even if the witness opposes it, as affirmed by various precedents. Seminole's argument that the Supreme Court's decision in Trammel v. United States altered the spousal privilege framework is rejected.

In Trammel, the Supreme Court determined that a criminal defendant cannot invoke the adverse spousal testimony privilege to prevent a spouse from testifying against him, even if she is willing to do so. Previously, under Hawkins, such testimony was barred unless both spouses consented. The Court clarified that the privilege now belongs solely to the witness-spouse, who can refuse to testify adversely. Despite the case not involving a crime against a spouse, the Court acknowledged a long-standing common law exception for crimes committed against one spouse by the other. Seminole argues that the language in Trammel, stating a witness "may not be compelled to testify," indicates a broad prohibition against compulsion in all circumstances, effectively overruling Wyatt. However, this interpretation is seen as overly broad; the Court's intent was to affirm that a witness cannot be compelled to testify against her spouse unless an exception applies. Trammel identified an exception that has existed since 1631, although it was not relevant to its facts. No cases were cited that suggest Trammel eliminated a court's ability to compel a spouse's testimony when she is a victim. Additionally, no state laws in the circuit allow a spouse to refuse testimony in domestic violence cases. The excerpt emphasizes the ongoing issue of domestic violence, which often involves intimidation of victims to prevent them from testifying. The district court's decision to compel testimony in this context was upheld.