St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog
Federal sex crime prosecutions can raise several complex issues at once, including expert testimony, government disclosure duties, and sentencing enhancements. A recent Eleventh Circuit ruling illustrates how preservation rules may prevent review of an expert-evidence challenge and how courts evaluate claimed discovery violations and guideline calculations. If you are accused of serious sexual offenses, you should promptly contact a St. Petersburg sex crime defense attorney who can preserve objections and challenge the government’s proof at every stage.
History of the Case
Allegedly, federal prosecutors charged the defendant with abusive sexual contact of a child and aggravated sexual abuse of a child. Before trial, the defense asked for a hearing under the rules governing the reliability and relevance of expert testimony. A magistrate judge denied that request, but the defendant did not seek review by the district judge within the required procedure.
Reportedly, a jury convicted the defendant on both charges, and the district court imposed life imprisonment. The court applied a guideline enhancement for a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct involving a minor, relying on the jury’s findings that the offenses involved two separate occasions.
It is reported that the defendant appealed the convictions and sentence. The appellant challenged the absence of an expert-evidence hearing, asserted that prosecutors withheld favorable or discoverable information involving family information, a victim’s sexual conduct, and telephone records, and argued that judicial factfinding could not support the guideline enhancement.
Evidence and Disclosure in Sex Crime Cases
On appeal, the court reviewed evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, disclosure questions under the appropriate de novo or prejudice standards, and constitutional sentencing issues de novo. It first concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the magistrate judge’s denial of a hearing because the appellant never appealed that order to the district judge. Federal criminal procedure also treats the failure to object to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive ruling as a waiver of review.
The court then examined the disclosure claims. Due process requires prosecutors to disclose favorable, material evidence, including impeachment information. A defendant seeking a new trial must show that the government possessed favorable evidence, the defense could not obtain it with reasonable diligence, the government suppressed it, and timely disclosure probably would have changed the outcome. Federal discovery rules similarly cover requested materials within the government’s possession, custody, or control when they are material or intended for use at trial.
The defendant did not identify particular favorable materials that the government possessed and withheld. Speculation that more information existed could not establish suppression, prejudice, or a discovery violation. Finally, the enhancement affected only the advisory guideline range, not the statutory minimum or maximum. The Sixth Amendment therefore permitted the sentencing court to make guideline findings under a preponderance standard. In any event, the jury’s two convictions supplied the required separate occasions. Finding no reversible error, the court affirmed the convictions and life sentence.
Protect Your Rights with a Dedicated St. Petersburg Sex Crime Defense Attorney
Early, careful litigation can determine whether an objection remains available on appeal and whether the government meets its disclosure obligations. If you are charged with a sex offense, the dedicated St. Petersburg sex crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can analyze the evidence, preserve critical challenges, and advocate for your rights. Call 727-289-0222 or complete the firm’s online contact form to schedule a confidential consultation about your case.