A Powerless Plurality: the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in U.s. v. James Correctly Determined That the Plurality Opinion in Williams v. Illinois Lacks Precedential Value

• Publication year: 2012

47 Creighton L. Rev. 193. A POWERLESS PLURALITY: THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN U.S. V. JAMES CORRECTLY DETERMINED THAT THE PLURALITY OPINION IN WILLIAMS V. ILLINOIS LACKS PRECEDENTIAL VALUE

A POWERLESS PLURALITY: THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN U.S. V. JAMES CORRECTLY DETERMINED THAT THE PLURALITY OPINION IN WILLIAMS V. ILLINOIS LACKS PRECEDENTIAL VALUE

Jennifer R. Varon

I. INTRODUCTION ................................... 194

II. FACTS AND HOLDING ............................ 195

III. BACKGROUND .................................... 198

A. A DIVIDED SUPREME COURT SPEAKS ON THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE: WILLIAMS V. ILLINOIS ... 198

B. PRE-WILLIAMS SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT REGARDING THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE ......... 200

1. Bullcoming v. New Mexico ................... 200

2. Davis v. Washington ......................... 201

C. THE SUPREME COURT REVEALS THE PRECEDENTIAL VALUE OF ITS OWN OPINIONS ....... 202

1. Precedential Value of Divided Supreme Court Opinions: Marks v. United States ...... 202

2. Precedential Value of Majority Supreme Court Opinions: Hohn v. United States ....... 204

D. COURTS RESPOND TO THE DIVIDED COURT'S OPINION IN WILLIAMS ............................ 205

1. The Supreme Court of Appeals for West Virginia Responds to Williams in State v. Kennedy .................................... 205

2. The Illinois Court of Appeals responds to Williams in People v. Negron ................ 206

3. The Illinois Supreme Court responds to Williams in People v. Leach .................. 207

4. The First Circuit Responds to Williams in United States v. Cameron .................... 208

5. The Central District of California Responds to Williams in Benjamin v. Harrington ....... 209

IV. ANALYSIS ......................................... 210

A. WILLIAMS IS ONLY BINDING PRECEDENT TO THE EXTENT OF THE NARROWEST POSITION AGREED UPON BY THE CONCURRING JUSTICES .............. 211

B. WILLIAMS DOES NOT HAVE A NARROWEST POSITION AGREED UPON BY THE CONCURRING JUSTICES AND THEREFORE THE SECOND CIRCUIT WAS CORRECT WHEN IT STATED THAT WILLIAMS DID NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL VALUE ............. 211

C. OTHER COURTS HAVE AGREED WITH THE SECOND CIRCUIT AND DETERMINED THAT WILLIAMS DOES NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL VALUE .......................................... 213

D. SOME COURTS HAVE INCORRECTLY DETERMINED THAT WILLIAMS HAS PRECEDENTIAL VALUE ........ 214

E. IT IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR COURTS TO APPLY WILLIAMS BECAUSE WILLIAMS CONFLICTS WITH PREVIOUS MAJORITY SUPREME COURT OPINIONS ... 215

V. CONCLUSION ..................................... 216

I. INTRODUCTION

The Sixth Amendment(fn1) to the United States Constitution gives criminal defendants the right to confront the witnesses against them. In recent years, the Confrontation Clause has become crucial in determining the admissibility of the state's expert materials and testimony at criminal trials.(fn2) Case law on the Confrontation Clause attempts to describe when the creators of expert materials must personally testify at trial in order for the materials themselves to be admissible.(fn3) Yet as it currently stands, the body of law on the Confrontation Clause can be described as confused, at best, as courts have struggled to determine how and whether to apply the Supreme Court's decision in Williams v. Illinois,(fn4) the Court's most recent decision on issue.(fn5)

In United States v. James,(fn6) the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered how to apply Williams v. Illinois.(fn7) The appellant in the case argued that his rights under the Confrontation Clause had been violated when expert reports were admitted at trial although the author of the reports did not testify.(fn8) In determining the applicability of Williams, the court decided that Williams had no precedential value before the James court and therefore could not be applied.(fn9) The court based its determination on the fact that Williams was decided by a divided court and no single rationale had the approval of five justices.(fn10)

After a review of the facts and holding of the Second Circuit in James, as well as relevant decisions from other courts, this Note will first show that plurality decisions, like Williams, can only be binding precedent to the extent of the narrowest rationale agreed upon by at least five justices.(fn11) Next, this Note will explain that Williams does not have a rationale that was agreed upon by five justices.(fn12) This Note will show that, as a result, the Second Circuit was correct when it determined that Williams lacked precedential value and instead relied upon preWilliams precedent.(fn13) This Note will next show that other courts have agreed with the Second Circuit in finding that Williams lacks precedential value and that the courts that have determined that Williams has precedential value have done so improperly.(fn14) Finally, this Note will show that it is problematic for courts to apply the plurality's opinion in Williams because Williams differs from previous majority Supreme Court opinions on the Confrontation Clause.(fn15)

II. FACTS AND HOLDING

United States v. James(fn16) involved a Confrontation Clause challenge to the introduction of medical reports where authors of the reports did not testify at trial.(fn17) The case involved two defendants, Richard James and Ronald Mallay (hereinafter collectively "James").(fn18) James was charged with nineteen different crimes ranging from racketeering to multiple counts of murder.(fn19) James was accused of arranging the purchase of life insurance policies on four individuals and then organizing the murder of those individuals in order to collect the insurance proceeds.(fn20)

One of the victims was Basdeo Somaipersaud, whose cause of death was chlorpromazine poisoning.(fn21) At trial Dr. Corinne Ambrosi, the Queens County deputy chief medical examiner, testified to the results of a toxicology test performed on Somaispersaud in the course of his autopsy.(fn22) The toxicology report was also admitted into evidence during the trial; however, Dr. Ambrosi did not order or perform the toxicology test.(fn23) Dr. Jindrak ordered the toxicology test and laboratory technicians performed the test.(fn24) At no point during the trial did Dr. Jindrak or the laboratory technicians take the stand to testify about the results of the toxicology report.(fn25) At trial, the defendants failed to object to Dr. Ambrosi's testimony or to the admission of the toxicology report itself.(fn26)

Another victim was Hardeo Sewnanan, whose cause of death was ammonia poisoning.(fn27) At trial Dr. Vivikand Brijmohan, a forensic pathologist, testified to Sewnanan's cause of death.(fn28) Dr. Brijmohan's opinion regarding Sewnanan's cause of death was partially based on a toxicology test performed by Dr. Leslie Mootoo.(fn29) Dr. Mootoo never took the stand at trial, thus the defendants were never given the opportunity to crossexamine him.(fn30)

The defendants objected to Dr. Brijmohan's testimony at trial regarding the toxicology report by arguing that its admission violated the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution.(fn31) The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York overruled the defendants' objection and determined that the Confrontation Clause was not violated.(fn32) The trial court based its ruling on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's opinion in United States v. Feliz,(fn33) because at that time, the Supreme Court's decisions in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts,(fn34) Bullcoming v. New Mexico,(fn35) and Williams v. Illinois(fn36) had not yet been issued.(fn37) In Feliz, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals determined that autopsy reports were not testimonial and therefore could not violate the Confrontation Clause.(fn38) The district court determined that a toxicology report is not distinct from an autopsy report.(fn39)

At the conclusion of trial, James was found guilty of the murder of Somaipersaud and Sewnanan.(fn40) James was sentenced to life in prison.(fn41) After their conviction, the defendants appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, alleging that the testimony of both Dr. Ambrosi and Dr. Brijmohan violated the Confrontation Clause.(fn42) The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that neither doctor's testimony violated the Confrontation Clause because the autopsy reports were nottestimonial.(fn43)

Because the defendants did not object to Dr. Ambrosi's testimony at trial, the Second Circuit only analyzed the admission of the report for plain error.(fn44) To determine whether the report was testimonial, the court used the preWilliams primary purpose test and examined whether the report was created with the primary purpose of use at a criminal trial.(fn45) To determine the primary purpose of the report, the Second Circuit analyzed the relationship between the medical examiner's office and law enforcement.(fn46) The Second Circuit determined that the medical examiner's office conducts death investigations in more than just criminal scenarios and that in this case, Dr. Jindrak did not suspect and had no reason to suspect that Somaipersaud had been murdered when the test was conducted.(fn47) Therefore, the Second Circuit concluded that the report was not testimonial because it could not have been prepared with the primary purpose of use at a...