United States v. Avants

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
Revised May 7, 2004
April 19, 2004
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

No. 03-60526

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERNEST HENRY AVANTS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

RHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge:

This appeal from a conviction in 2003 concerning a racially

motivated murder in a national forest in 1966 primarily presents

constitutional due process and confrontation issues. Ernest Henry

Avants was convicted for aiding and abetting the premeditated

murder of Ben Chester White. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 (murder), 7(3)

(territorial jurisdiction over lands acquired by the United

States), and 2 (aiding and abetting).

This 37-year delay, and attendant procedures utilized because

of it, generated numerous issues. For example, as a result of this

great passage of time, key witnesses had died; therefore, among
other hearsay evidence, their testimony from almost 40 years before

was read to the jury at the 2003 trial.

The principal issue raised by Avants is whether the indictment

should have been dismissed because of the delay in obtaining it;

among other things, Avants claims bad faith by the Government. He

also presents many other challenges, quite a few for the first time

on appeal: evidentiary rulings, including admitting testimony from

a 1966 state court preliminary hearing; evidence sufficiency;

requested jury instruction refusal; and sentencing at a federal

prison in Texas by the trial judge from the Southern District of

Mississippi for a crime committed there. AFFIRMED.

I.

Shortly before James Jones, on 11 June 1966, reported his

automobile stolen, Mississippi law enforcement officers had found

the intentionally burned vehicle. The next day, the body of Ben

Chester White, a 67-year-old black sharecropper, was found beneath

a bridge in Homochitto National Forest, in Adams County,

Mississippi. While in custody the following day, Jones began

making statements to Mississippi law enforcement officers,

implicating himself, Claude Fuller, and Avants in White’s racially

motivated murder.

Jones’ statements were in June and July 1966: one on 13 June;

two on 14 June; one on 17 June (testimony at Fuller’s and Avants’

separate state court preliminary hearings); one on 5 July; and one

2
on 15 July (recorded statement to the state prosecutor). Jones’

June 1966 preliminary hearing testimony and his July 1966 statement

to the prosecutor were read to the jury at Avants’ trial on the

federal charge in 2003.

According to Jones’ 1966 preliminary hearing testimony, the

murder occurred as follows. Jones drove to Fuller’s house in the

early evening on 10 June (Friday). Avants arrived approximately 30

minutes after Jones did. After the three men proceeded in Jones’

automobile to White’s house, where they asked him about a lost dog,

White got into the automobile with them. With Jones driving, they

entered the national forest. After Jones drove across a bridge,

Fuller instructed him to turn the automobile around; Jones did so

and stopped on the bridge. Fuller exited from the front passenger

seat with a rifle (M—2 carbine); Avants, from the seat behind the

driver with a shotgun. Both men walked to where White was sitting

(rear passenger-side). Fuller ordered White to exit the vehicle.

When White did not do so, Fuller shot him with the rifle at least

15 times in rapid succession and then told Avants: “Now you shoot

him with the shot gun [sic]”. Avants fired once; “the [shotgun]

blast blew [White’s] head off”. Fuller and Avants removed White’s

body from the automobile and threw it over the bridge. Because of

the resulting condition of Jones’ automobile, Fuller and Avants

burned it at another location. Fuller instructed Jones to report

the vehicle stolen.

3
 In the 15 July 1966 recorded statement to the state

prosecutor, Jones admitted that, two weeks before the murder, he,

Fuller, and two other individuals (but not Avants) had driven to

White’s house to kill him. But, because others were present, they

did not do so. Relevant to Avants, the 15 July statement provided:

on the day of the murder, while Jones was at Fuller’s house, but

before Avants’ arrival, Fuller told Jones to “just take it easy; I

got a fellow will be by in a minute”; later, when Jones’ automobile

stopped on the bridge, “Avants bailed out on the other side of the

car at the same time ... Fuller did”, with both men carrying their

guns; and Jones helped Fuller and Avants drop White’s body over the

bridge.

Avants was indicted on state murder charges. On 13 March

1967, prior to his state trial late that year, Avants was

interviewed by FBI Special Agents Kornblum and Boyle, concerning

another racially motivated murder. In that interview, Avants

volunteered that he had shot White with a shotgun. Among other

comments, he stated: “Yeah, I shot that nigger.... I shot

[White]. I blew his head off with a shotgun”.

In December 1967, Avants was acquitted of the state charges.

Jones’ trial ended in a hung jury. Fuller was never tried.

According to the Government, the case was brought to its

attention in 1999, when a national news program provided a

videotape of a recent interview with Avants. As a result, the

Government became aware that the site of the crime (a national

4
forest) supplied a basis for federal prosecution. See 18 U.S.C. §

7(3) (territorial jurisdiction of the United States). In June

2000, Avants was indicted in the Southern District of Mississippi

on a federal charge for White’s murder, based on the murder taking

place in the national forest.

During pretrial motions, the district court ruled that Avants’

13 March 1967 statement to Special Agents Kornblum and Boyle

(including, “I blew [White’s] head off with a shotgun”) would be

excluded. As a result of the Government’s interlocutory appeal,

the ruling was reversed. United States v. Avants, 278 F.3d 510

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 968 (2002).

A three-day trial took place in February 2003. In the time

between the 1966 murder and 2003 trial, witnesses had died: Jones;

Fuller; the woman who worked in the store where they stopped; the

police officer who had taken Jones’ stolen vehicle report; and Dr.

Scanlon, who performed White’s autopsy. Witnesses who were still

alive (the then 10-year-old and 11-year-old who found White’s body;

the then 21-year-old neighbor who saw White drive off in Jones’

automobile) were considerably older than they had been at the time

of events. Certain physical evidence had become unavailable:

White had been buried shortly after his death, and even if the

exact site were found, little could be learned; and X-rays from the

postmortem examination could not be located.

5
 The evidence presented at trial by the Government included:

Jones’ 17 June 1966 state preliminary hearing testimony and 15 July

1966 statement to the state prosecutor (read to the jury);

testimony (read to the jury) from Avants’ preliminary hearing and

Jones’ trial by Dr. Scanlon (deceased), who performed the autopsy

on White; testimony by Dr. Hayne, a pathologist; and testimony by

Kornblum, one of the FBI Special Agents to whom Avants stated in

March 1967 that he had shot White with a shotgun. Avants presented

Dr. Galvez, a pathologist.

The jury found Avants guilty. Because of Avants’ health, and

over his objection, sentencing was held in Texas, where Avants was

incarcerated to ensure proper medical treatment, rather than at the

place of trial — the Southern District of Mississippi. He was

sentenced to life imprisonment.

II.

The numerous issues raised by Avants include: pre-indictment

delay; evidentiary rulings; evidence sufficiency; requested jury

instruction refusal; and sentencing venue. Many of these issues

are raised for the first time on appeal.

A.

Avants contends that, for the facts at hand, the Government’s

indicting him in June 2000 for a crime committed in June 1966, 34

years earlier, violates due process. The crime for which Avants

was indicted does not have a statute of limitations, but the Fifth

Amendment’s due process clause limits the time after an offense

6
within which the Government may bring an indictment. United States

v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 788-89 (1977); United States v. Marion,

404 U.S. 307, 324 (1971).

For our circuit’s two-part test for determining whether pre-

indictment delay violates due process, an accused must show: the

delay “was intentionally brought about by the government for the

purpose of gaining some tactical advantage over the accused in the

contemplated prosecution or for some other bad faith purpose”; and

“the improper delay caused actual, substantial prejudice to his

defense”. United States v. Crouch, 84 F.3d 1497, 1523 (5th Cir.

1996) (en banc), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1076 (1997). In short, the

burden is on the defendant to satisfy both parts. See United

States v. Jimenez, 256 F.3d 330, 345 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied,

534 U.S. 1140 (2002).

As he did in district court, Avants urges a more favorable

test, employed by a minority of circuits. E.g., Howell v. Barker,

904 F.2d 889, 895 (4th Cir.) (once defendant shows actual

prejudice, court balances prejudice against Government’s

justification for the delay), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1016 (1990).

Of course, we must follow precedent established by an earlier

panel, e.g., United States v. Tampico, 297 F.3d 396, 404 n.4 (5th

Cir. 2002), not to mention a decision by our en banc court (as is

Crouch).

7
 The district court’s factual determinations are reviewed only

for clear error; its conclusions of law, de novo. E.g., United

States v. Beszborn, 21 F.3d 62, 66 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub

nom. Westmoreland v. United States, 513 U.S. 934 (1994). Under the

clear error standard, “we defer to the findings of the district

court unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction that

a mistake has been committed”. Payne v. United States, 289 F.3d

377, 381 (5th Cir. 2002).

Pre-trial, in July 2000, Avants moved to dismiss the

indictment because, inter alia, it violated due process. For our

two-part test, he alleged for the bad faith prong that the

“prosecution intentionally or negligently delayed the indictment in

order to obtain a tactical advantage ... thirty years after the

offense”. In that regard, he contended: there was no legitimate

investigatory need for the delay; and, in the absence of such need,

the court should “infer that the decision was made in order to gain

an advantage over Avants”. For the prejudice prong, Avants

alleged: evidence he had used when tried in state court in 1967

had become unavailable; evidence had become available to the

Government that had not been available in 1967; and the passage of

time had made it impossible to impeach the evidence that had become

available to the Government.

The Government offered its explanation for why Avants was not

indicted on federal charges in the aftermath of the murder: the

8
Department of Justice (DOJ) had then considered only charging

Avants with a civil rights offense, with a five-year limitations

period (the Government presented a July 1970 memorandum from an

Assistant Attorney General in the DOJ Civil Rights Division,

stating that the limitations period would expire in 11 months); the

Government elected not to indict within that period; and the matter

lay dormant until 1999, when the possibility of territorial

jurisdiction was brought to its attention.

At a 1 September 2000 hearing, the district court heard

evidence and argument on the motion to dismiss. The court found:

for the bad faith prong, Avants had not shown “there was an

intentional ... tactical decision to delay the prosecution for the

purpose of disadvantaging [Avants] in some way”; and, for the

prejudice prong, Avants had not made the requisite showing of

“actual and substantial” prejudice. Accordingly, the motion to

dismiss was denied (orally) at the hearing.

On 10 January 2003, Avants moved again to dismiss for pre-

indictment delay. For this second motion, Avants presented all the

claims from his first, as well as claiming additional prejudice

because of ill health. (He had suffered a stroke during the

pendency of the Government’s interlocutory appeal (from the October

2000 notice of appeal to our January 2002 decision and the June

2002 denial of Avants’ petition for a writ of certiorari).) The

district court denied this motion on 29 January 2003 because, a few

days earlier (23 January), it had found Avants competent to stand

9
trial; therefore, there was no incompetency to serve as part of the

prejudice needed to support the second prong for a due process

violation.

We do not address this second motion for two reasons. First,

Avants does not challenge the competency ruling; therefore, he has

waived the only issue new to the second motion. Second, we resolve

this due process claim solely on the basis of the bad faith prong,

for which Avants’ health has not been placed in issue; restated,

for Avants’ claim, as discussed below, it bears only on the

prejudice prong.

Avants offers two reasons why the district court should have

found the requisite bad faith: first, because it is clear there

was a possibility of a federal prosecution in the years following

the murder but the Government elected not to prosecute, the “clear

inference” is that it delayed in order to gain a tactical

advantage, including awaiting the deaths of Jones and Fuller; and

second, “in the absence of a legitimate reason for the delay”, it

should be inferred that the decision not to prosecute was made in

order to gain an advantage over Avants. At the September 2000

hearing, Avants admitted that the only evidence concerning the bad

faith prong was the 1970 DOJ memorandum, which stated: there were

11 months left in the limitations period; and the DOJ Civil Rights

Division “want[ed] to make a determination as to whether ... the

death of the victim [was] prosecutable”.

10
 As stated, the district court found there was no tactical

delay. Considering the DOJ memorandum and the Government’s

explanation for why Avants was not prosecuted then, the district

court’s finding no bad faith by the Government was not clearly

erroneous. As also stated, because Avants cannot satisfy the bad

faith prong, we need not address the second (prejudice).

B.

Avants maintains the district court reversibly erred with

respect to numerous evidentiary rulings: in admitting Jones’ 1966

preliminary hearing testimony; in permitting the Government’s

pathologist to opine on the kind of weapon that caused the wound to

White’s head; and in excluding evidence for impeaching Jones — his

9 September 1970 statement to FBI Agents that he “knew nothing”,

described infra, and his two convictions from the 1930s.

Avants also contests the exclusion of: the docket sheet from

Jones’ state trial and evidence of occurrences at that trial, which

Avants claims demonstrates Jones repudiated his statements made

before Jones’ state trial; and statements about Jones’ mental

health (claimed to be insane) at the time he made the statements

later introduced at Avants’ federal trial. Because Avants failed

to adequately brief these contentions, they are waived. E.g.,

Cavallini v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 256, 260 n.9

(5th Cir. 1995). (In the alternative, there was no reversible

11
error concerning the rulings challenged by these inadequately

briefed issues.)

Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion;

however, in the absence of a proper objection, we review only for

plain error. FED. R. EVID. 103; e.g., United States v. Polasek, 162

F.3d 878, 883 (5th Cir. 1998). Under the plain error standard,

Avants must show “clear or obvious error that affects his

substantial rights”; even then, we retain discretion whether to

correct the forfeited error. United States v. Redd, 355 F.3d 866,

874 (5th Cir. 2003). Generally, we will not do so unless the error

"seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation

of judicial proceedings". United States v. Fullwood, 342 F.3d 409,

413 (5th Cir. 2003) (alteration in original), cert. denied, 124 S.

Ct. 1087 (2004).

1.

Avants’ 31 July 2000 motion in limine sought to exclude Jones’

1966 preliminary hearing testimony. The Government offered the

testimony under Rule 804(b)(1) (testimony by an unavailable

declarant at a prior hearing, in the same or different proceeding,

is admissible hearsay if the party against whom it is offered had

an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by

direct, cross, or redirect examination). That “Rule ... allows

admission of the prior testimony of a deceased witness if the

defendant ‘had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the

12
testimony by ... cross ... examination’”. United States v.

Tannehill, 49 F.3d 1049, 1057 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S.

859 (1995). Without naming either the Confrontation Clause or the

Sixth Amendment in which it is found, Jones’ motion offered three

reasons for excluding the evidence: Rule 804(b)(1) was not

applicable because in 1966 Avants did not have a similar motive to

impeach Jones as he would have if Jones had been available to

testify in 2003; there were insufficient indicia of reliability;

and Rule 403 barred it (permitting exclusion if probative value of

evidence is substantially outweighed by, inter alia, unfair

prejudice).

The requested exclusion was addressed at the 1 September 2000

evidentiary hearing, which included testimony by Avants’ attorney

at the 1966 preliminary hearing. In denying the motion, the court

found: Jones was deceased; on 17 June 1966, a preliminary hearing

had been held for Fuller and then for Avants; Jones testified at

both; Avants had been represented by counsel, who “agreed [at the

1 September 2000 hearing] that he must have been present at the

preliminary hearing of Fuller since he agreed that the testimony

from that hearing would be considered and included in part of the

record in Avants’ [subsequent] preliminary hearing”; and Avants

“had the opportunity to develop the testimony by cross-examination

since he had an attorney representing him who did, in fact, cross-

examine Jones”.

13
 The district court considered Avants’ real challenge to

admitting the prior testimony as being whether he had a similar

motive; according to Avants, when Jones testified in 1966, the

practice by defense counsel for Mississippi preliminary hearings

was to use them to discover the prosecution’s case without

providing information that could be used in defense. Pursuant to

Tannehill and United States v. Mann, 161 F.3d 840, 861 (5th Cir.

1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1117 (1999), the district court ruled

that Avants had a similar motive: “He could have discredited

[Jones] or attempted to do so through the cross-examination by his

counsel”. The court determined that the cross-examination of Jones

at the 1966 preliminary hearing was intended to develop a theory

that Avants could not be guilty of murder because White was already

dead when Avants shot him; and it held that a change in strategy

“does not mean that [Avants] has changed motive or did not have

motive to cross-examine and develop [Jones’ 1966] testimony as to

the truth”. The court did not address the other two bases Jones

raised for exclusion: the lack of reliability of the preliminary

hearing testimony or Rule 403. (On 10 January 2003, Avants renewed

his motion to exclude the preliminary hearing testimony. On 29

January 2003, the day it denied the second motion claiming pre-

indictment delay, the district court denied the renewed exclusion

motion as being repetitive.)

14
 Avants contends the 1966 preliminary hearing testimony should

have been excluded for the three reasons presented in his motion in

limine: Rule 804(b)(1); lack of reliability (a Sixth Amendment

Confrontation Clause challenge); and Rule 403. (Avants’

contemporaneous objection at trial was not sufficiently specific to

preserve error; but, pursuant to the 2000 amendment to Federal Rule

of Evidence 103, a pretrial “definitive ruling on the record

admitting or excluding evidence”, as in this case, is sufficient to

do so. FED. R. EVID. 103(a); see Mathis v. Exxon Corp., 302 F.3d

448, 459 n.16 (5th Cir. 2002).)

a.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that

the 1966 preliminary hearing testimony was admissible through Rule

804(b)(1). That Rule requires that Avants have an opportunity and

similar motive for cross-examination at the preliminary hearings.

Obviously, his attorney had the requisite opportunity to cross-

examine Jones at Avants’ preliminary hearing in 1966; he actively

did so. Avants’ counsel at that 1966 hearing made the strategic

decision to permit Jones’ testimony at Fuller’s preliminary hearing

earlier that day to be part of the record against Avants at his

subsequent preliminary hearing. If Avants’ then-counsel did not

actively cross-examine Jones about what he said at Fuller’s

preliminary hearing, it was because he chose to focus his cross-

examination on other parts of Jones’ testimony.

15
 For this appeal, Avants did not present any evidence of the

scope of the charges against him in his state prosecution. For

example, some evidence that would tend to undermine a murder charge

(that the victim was already dead when the defendant shot him)

might not tend to undermine a charge of aiding and abetting murder

(in which the Government does not have the burden of proving that

the defendant committed a homicidal act).

Stated somewhat differently, at his 2003 federal trial, Avants

may have had to discredit Jones on more elements than he did at the

1966 state preliminary hearing. But, particularly where the scope

of Avants’ state prosecution does not appear in the record, we can

only conclude that, in both situations, his motive was to discredit

a witness (Jones) whose testimony could, if believed, convict him.

Avants’ counsel for the state prosecution could have tried to

discredit Jones about Avants’ presence at the murder, or Avants’

intent at the time. The matters on which Jones was to be

discredited were a matter of trial strategy, which do not make

motive dissimilar. Tannehill, 49 F.3d at 1057.

In sum, Avants has not presented any reason why the district

court abused its discretion in ruling that in 1966 Avants had the

requisite similar motive to discredit Jones as he did in 2003. See

id. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

admitting the testimony pursuant to Rule 804(b)(1).

16
 b.

In district court, Avants claimed the 1966 preliminary hearing

testimony lacked reliability. On the other hand, Avants did not

specifically raise a possible violation of the Sixth Amendment’s

Confrontation Clause through the admission of such testimony.

Arguably, review would be only for plain error. In any event,

there was no error.

At the time of the district court proceedings, Ohio v.

Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980), provided that the Confrontation Clause

was not violated if the evidence was within a firmly rooted hearsay

exception, or if there were particular indicia of reliability. See

id. at 66. As noted, the testimony at issue was admitted under

Rule 804(b)(1), a firmly rooted exception. Mann, 161 F.3d at 861.

As such, the admission was constitutionally permissible.

But, after oral argument for this appeal, the Supreme Court

reversed Roberts in Crawford v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1374

(2004) (“Where testimonial evidence is at issue, however, the Sixth

Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and

a prior opportunity for cross-examination.”). Reliability alone,

the Court held, is insufficient to satisfy the Confrontation

Clause. The qualities that made Jones’ testimony admissible under

804(b)(1) make it meet Crawford’s Confrontation Clause test:

unavailability and prior opportunity for cross-examination. In

this instance, Crawford did not alter the rule that evidence within

17
the firmly rooted hearsay exception expressed in Rule 804(b)(1)

satisfies the Confrontation Clause.

c.

Regarding Rule 403, Avants does not contend that the district

court erred by not explicitly ruling on his claim under that Rule.

Therefore, we understand his contention as challenging the result

of the district court’s requisite balancing in implicitly denying

that claim.

The prejudicial effect of the testimony was that, if the jury

found it credible, it would be more likely to find that the

Government had met its burden in proving Avants’ guilt. Obviously,

this is not the kind of unfair prejudice that Rule 403 is meant to

prevent. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 355 F.3d 358, 361

(5th Cir. 2003) (district court did not abuse discretion in

admitting evidence substantiating a “central issue in the case”).

Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in not

excluding the evidence on this basis.

2.

Concerning Dr. Hayne’s testimony as an expert in forensic

pathology for the Government (at trial, Dr. Hayne was accepted

without objection), Avants maintains it was reversible error for

the district court to permit Dr. Hayne to opine that the wound to

White’s head was caused by a shotgun (the type firearm carried by

Avants) and not by a rifle (the type firearm carried by Fuller).

18
Avants contends that this was improper for two reasons: it

amounted to Dr. Hayne’s testifying that certain hearsay declarants

were telling the truth; and such hearsay is not the kind of

evidence that pathologists generally rely upon in reaching

conclusions.

a.

Evidentiary objections must be specific. FED. R. EVID.

103(a)(1); Polasek, 162 F.3d at 883 (“a trial ... judge must be

fully apprised of the grounds of an objection”). There was no

objection on the basis that Dr. Hayne was somehow impermissibly

testifying to the truthfulness of other witnesses. Therefore, we

review only for plain error.

Dr. Hayne had reviewed the autopsy report prepared at the time

of White’s death, photographs of the body, and scholarly literature

on ballistics. In addition, he relied upon: Jones’ 1966

preliminary hearing testimony about how far Fuller was from the

automobile when he shot White; a hearsay account, not introduced at

the federal trial, of a witness who heard the shooting; and Avants’

March 1967 statement that he had shot White with a shotgun. He

drew upon each of these sources of information and reached the

conclusion that they were “not only consistent [about the use of

the shotgun], but they’re mutually supportive of each other”. The

error, if any, was neither “clear” nor “obvious”; there was no

plain error.

19
 b.

It is a closer question whether Avants preserved at trial his

contention that the hearsay relied upon by Dr. Hayne (Jones’ 1966

preliminary hearing testimony; Avants’ statement in March 1967 he

had shot White; the witness who heard the shooting) is not the kind

of evidence generally relied upon by pathologists. On direct

examination of Dr. Hayne, the Government asked:

Based upon your reading of [Dr. Scanlon’s
postmortem] report and to a reasonable medical
certainty, can you tell the jury the type of
instrumentality or weapon that caused the
injury that you have just testified about to
the head of Ben Chester White?

Dr. Hayne answered:

With the confirmation of other information
provided to me it would be with reasonable
medical certainty that a shotgun was used in
close proximity to Mr. White’s head to inflict
the injuries to the forehead and to the
cranial vault of Mr. White.

(Emphasis added.) Avants’ counsel did not object.

Later on direct examination, the Government asked Dr. Hayne

whether the “massive injury” to White’s head was either consistent

or inconsistent with the kind of firearm used by Fuller (carbine).

Again without objection, Dr. Hayne answered: “It’s inconsistent,

sir, for several reasons”. Upon the Government’s asking Dr. Hayne

to identify those reasons, he stated, relying in part on a hearsay

statement (Jones’ 1966 preliminary hearing testimony): the carbine

was fired about three inches from the vehicle; and the powder marks

20
on White’s forehead were inconsistent with such a gun fired from

that distance. At this point, Avants’ counsel objected:

Your Honor, I’m going to object to that
conclusion because that’s based on too much
speculation. There’s some – he received some
hearsay information, apparently, as to the
distance of the carbine when it was fired.

But I don’t think this doctor can say
that he has an opinion based upon reasonable
medical certainty how far away from the head
that rifle was when it was fired because
there’s been nothing that would verify
something like that except anecdotal hearsay.

Arguably, this objection does not specifically identify the issue

of the practices for forensic pathology. But, even assuming that

it does, and therefore applying the less deferential abuse of

discretion standard, rather than that for plain error, we find no

reversible error.

As noted, Dr. Hayne was accepted by Avants as an expert in

forensic pathology. Expert witnesses are permitted, of course, to

draw on a wide range of sources in forming their opinions. FED. R.

EVID. 703. For example, Rule 703 does not require a “personal

examination” of the “person or object of the expert’s testimony”.

Peteet v. Dow Chemical Co., 868 F.2d 1428, 1432 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 493 U.S. 935 (1989). Dr. Hayne testified that it was his

practice as a pathologist to gather information other than through

his own examinations; Avants did not object. When Avants asserted

to the district court that pathologists cannot take hearsay and

reconstruct what happened, the district court responded: “I

21
disagree with you, if he says he can do it within the parameters of

his expertise. And I see nothing that he’s set forth thus far that

would not fall within that expertise”. The district court was

aware that there were limits on what Dr. Hayne could testify to,

and determined that he had not exceeded them. Avants has not shown

an abuse of the discretion accorded district judges for evidentiary

rulings of this type concerning expert witnesses.

3.

Avants called one witness: a pathologist to counter the

testimony of the Government’s. He contests the pretrial ruling

that he would not be permitted to introduce certain other evidence.

a.

Two FBI Agents met with Jones on 9 September 1970; two days

later, on 11 September, they prepared a form memorandum of the

meeting (the memorandum). The memorandum states that, after they

identified themselves as FBI Agents and told Jones they were

investigating White’s murder, Jones: declined to sign a “Warning

and Waiver form”; “stated that he knew nothing of the killing of

BEN CHESTER WHITE”; stated he would “only discuss this matter in

the presence of his attorneys”; and “was extremely nervous”.

Because the district court had admitted Jones’ 1966

preliminary hearing testimony, Avants sought to introduce evidence

to impeach Jones, the hearsay declarant. Avants moved in limine to

have six statements by Jones, including the memorandum, admitted

22
for that purpose. The Government conceded the admissibility of one

statement and Avants withdrew his request for four. Regarding the

sixth (the memorandum), Avants apparently proposed to use the

memorandum as a prior inconsistent statement, admissible under

Rules 806 (credibility of hearsay declarants may be impeached) and

613(b) (using prior statements to impeach witnesses).

At a hearing on the first day of trial, the district court

ruled that the memorandum was not admissible for that purpose

because, in the context of the interview, including Jones’ being a

suspect and not being willing to discuss the matter without his

attorney’s being present, Jones’ saying “he knew nothing of”

White’s murder was a statement that had “no indicia of

truthfulness”; it was merely a form of stating that he did not wish

to talk to the FBI Agents.

Avants contends that the district court abused its discretion

because it impermissibly infringed on the proper realm of the jury.

This contention was not presented to the district judge; therefore,

we review only for plain error.

In order for a prior inconsistent statement to be admissible

for impeachment purposes, there must be a preliminary finding that

statements are inconsistent. “Preliminary questions” of

admissibility are for the trial judge. FED. R. EVID. 104. In this

instance, this preliminary decision was neither “clear” nor

“obvious” error. Accordingly, there was no plain error. (In the

23
alternative, even if the issue was properly raised, and even

assuming there was error, it was harmless.)

b.

Jones was convicted in 1935 of breaking and entering; in 1938,

of grand larceny. Avants moved to use these convictions to impeach

Jones’ testimony from 1966. The district court applied the ten-

year time limit found in Rule 609: “The time limit here clearly

prohibits the introduction of this evidence”. The court stated:

the convictions would have been too old even in a prosecution

shortly after the murder; and they were too old to be introduced at

a trial in 2003.

In district court, Avants contended that the court should

exercise its discretion to admit the over-age convictions. He

contends on appeal that the district court erred in not doing so;

we review that decision for abuse of discretion. (As shown below,

the district court did not do so.) In addition, Avants presents

three contentions that were not presented in district court: Rule

609 (and its age limitation) did not apply because the Rule did not

exist at the time of the murder; the district court erred by not

undertaking an on-the-record balancing to determine whether the

probative value of the over-age convictions substantially

outweighed their prejudicial effect, FED. R. EVID. 609(b); and the

convictions were admissible under Rule 404(b) to show motive to

testify falsely. We review these three new contentions for plain

error.

24
 (1)

There was no plain error in applying Rule 609 and its age-

limitations in a 2003 trial for a crime committed before the Rule

was adopted. The Rules are applicable in prosecutions begun after

their enactment in the absence of a showing that doing so “would

not be feasible, or would work injustice”. United States v. Cohen,

544 F.2d 781, 784 (5th Cir.) (quotation marks omitted), cert.

denied, 431 U.S. 914 (1977). Avants did not contend in district

court that injustice would result from applying the Rules in his

2003 trial; therefore, any error could not be “clear” or “obvious”.

Rule 609 provides for an exception to the ten-year limit when

a conviction’s probative value “substantially outweighs” its

prejudicial effect. Accordingly, Avants asserts it was error for

the district judge not to undertake an on-the-record balancing with

regard to this exception. But this balancing-requirement applies

only when over-age convictions are admitted; in other words, it is

not required when they are excluded. United States v. Estes, 994

F.2d 147, 149 (5th Cir. 1993).

Along this line, Avants contends that, if undertaken, such a

balancing would show probative value outweighed prejudicial effect

because Jones was convicted of “crimes of dishonesty”. See FED. R.

EVID. 609(a)(2). At trial, Avants conceded the convictions fell

under Rule 609(b) and its ten-year limitation. (Impeachment by

evidence of conviction, of whatever kind of crime, is subject to

25
the time limit in Rule 609(b).) The district court did not abuse

its discretion.

(2)

Finally, for the first time on appeal, Avants contends that,

under Rule 404(b) (permitting other crimes and bad acts to be

admitted as proof of, inter alia, motive), the 1930s convictions

were admissible to show a motive to testify falsely. See United

States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1388 (5th Cir. 1995) (“Whether

Rule 404(b) or Rule 608(b) applies to the admissibility of

other-act evidence depends on the purpose for which the prosecutor

introduced the other-acts evidence. Rule 404(b) applies when

other-acts evidence is offered as relevant to an issue in the case,

such as identity or intent. Rule 608(b) applies when other-acts

evidence is offered to impeach a witness, to show the character of

the witness for untruthfulness, or to show bias.” (citations and

quotation marks omitted)).

For present purposes, we need not address this question other

than to hold that the district court did not plainly err in not sua

sponte raising the issue of Rule 404 and in not concluding that the

convictions from the 1930s were admissible under it.

C.

At the close of the Government’s case in chief, Avants moved

for a judgment of acquittal, pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 29(a). The

motion was denied; it was not renewed at the close of all the

26
evidence. Accordingly, as the Government notes and as Avants

conceded at oral argument here, this challenge to evidence

sufficiency is reviewed only for a manifest miscarriage of justice

— the record must be devoid of evidence of guilt or the evidence

must be so tenuous that a conviction is shocking. E.g., United

States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir. 2003).

1.

For aiding and abetting premeditated murder, the Government

had to prove: there was a premeditated killing with malice

aforethought, see United States v. Shaw, 701 F.2d 367, 392-93 (5th

Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1067 (1984); and Avants

associated with the criminal venture, participated in it, and

sought to make it successful, United States v. Dukes, 139 F.3d 469,

474 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 894 (1998). There was no

direct evidence of Avants’ intent; but, as discussed supra, there

was evidence of his guilt for the charged offense. The conviction

was not a manifest miscarriage of justice.

For example, on the evening of the murder, Fuller and Jones

waited for Avants to arrive; Fuller had told Jones they were

waiting for Avants; when the automobile stopped on the bridge

(after Jones was instructed to return the vehicle to the bridge,

from which White’s body was dumped), Avants and Fuller

simultaneously got out of the automobile and walked around to

27
White’s door with their guns; after Fuller shot White with a rifle,

Avants shot White in the head with a shotgun at close range.

2.

In Avants’ reply brief, his counsel maintain their failing to

renew the motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the

evidence “constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel” (IAC).

Generally, we will neither consider an issue raised for the first

time in a reply brief nor consider an IAC claim if not first

presented in district court, so that the court can develop a

“record on the merits of the allegations”. United States v.

Sanchez-Pena, 336 F.3d 431, 445 (5th Cir. 2003). This appeal does

not present an exception to either rule.

D.

The district court refused Avants’ requested jury instructions

on the crimes of accessory after the fact (18 U.S.C. § 3) and

misprision of a felony (18 U.S.C. § 4). Avants contends that the

district court was required to instruct on these offenses, as

lesser included offenses, because there was sufficient evidence to

convict him on them.

“A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser

included offense if (1) the elements of the lesser offense are a

subset of the elements of the charged offense (statutory elements

test), and (2) the evidence at trial permits a rational jury to

find the defendant guilty of the lesser offense yet acquit him of

28
the greater.” United States v. Fitzgerald, 89 F.3d 218, 220 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 987 (1996). We review the first

prong de novo; the second, for abuse of discretion. United States

v. Estrada-Fernandez, 150 F.3d 491, 494 (5th Cir. 1998). “Where

the lesser offense requires an element not required for the greater

offense, no instruction is to be given under Rule 31(c).” Schmuck

v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 716 (1989).

Neither misprision of a felony nor accessory after the fact

are lesser included offenses of aiding and abetting murder.

Compare FIFTH CIRCUIT MODEL JURY INSTRUCTION 2.07 (accessory after the

fact) and 2.08 (misprision of a felony), with 2.06 (aiding and

abetting). For example, misprision of a felony is not a lesser

included offense of aiding and abetting because the former requires

proof that the defendant “failed to notify authorities of the

felony”. United States v. Adams, 961 F.2d 505, 508 (5th Cir.

1992). And accessory after the fact is not a lesser included

offense of aiding and abetting because the former requires proof

that the defendant gave assistance “in order to prevent the

apprehension, trial, or punishment of the offender”. United States

v. De la Rosa, 171 F.3d 215, 221 (5th Cir. 1999).

Accordingly, we need not consider the abuse of discretion

prong for the test. The requested instructions were properly

refused.

E.

29
 Avants was found guilty in February 2003; sentencing was set

for that May. The district court, “aware from pretrial competency

hearings that Avants is in his seventies, has suffered a stroke,

and is on numerous medications”, and believing that, pending

sentencing, locally used jail facilities could not provide him

proper medical care, ordered Avants into the custody of the Bureau

of Prisons (BOP) and recommended that he be placed in a facility

“having the ability to take care of his extensive medical needs”.

Avants was placed in a federal facility in the Northern District of

Texas.

Shortly before the scheduled sentencing, Avants moved to

continue it; according to Avants, personnel at the BOP facility in

Texas believed he was too ill to travel to Jackson, Mississippi,

for sentencing. The order continuing sentencing indefinitely

stated:

Because of the unusual circumstances of this
case, the United States will be allowed to
investigate and make suggestions as to any
alternative arrangements that might be made to
sentence [Avants] other than having him appear
in Jackson, Mississippi.

Later in May 2003, the district court set sentencing for that June:

“Because the Defendant is ill and unable to travel, sentencing will

be held at the Federal Medical Center ... [in] Texas”.

Avants filed a written objection to being sentenced in Texas,

“or at any other location outside of the Southern District of

Mississippi, for the reason that holding his sentencing outside

30
this District is in violation of Article III, Section 2 of the

United States Constitution [criminal trials shall be held in State

where crime committed], the Sixth Amendment to the United States

Constitution [criminal trial by jury drawn from State and district

in which crime committed], and Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure [prosecution in district where offense

committed]”. The Government responded that, without such a

procedure, Avants was in legal limbo, unable to appeal because

there was no judgment; it also noted that the district judge had

received permission from this court’s chief judge to hold court in

the Northern District of Texas, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 292(b)

(“The chief judge of a circuit may, in public interest, designate

and assign temporarily any district judge of the circuit to hold a

district court in any district within the circuit.”). In denying

Avants’ objection, the district court stated:

Under these unusual circumstances, the Court
opines that it has taken all necessary and
reasonable steps to ensure that sentencing
Avants in [Texas] is justified. Continuing
with the sentencing process in [Texas] ... is
in the best interest of all parties. Both the
interest of justice and the interest of Avants
will be served by finally concluding this
case.

At the sentencing hearing, the district judge stated: Avants

had an absolute right to be present at sentencing; because he could

not be brought to the court, it had come to him. The district

judge noted that counsel for the Government and Avants, as well as

members of Avants’ family, were in attendance. The court

31
acknowledged the § 292(b) order from this court’s chief judge, but

stated that it was not necessary: “The court feels ... that I may

without this order impose a sentence, as I am sitting in the

Southern District of Mississippi and where the authority is for

this sentencing and where the conviction took place”.

Avants declined to say anything on his behalf. He was

sentenced to life imprisonment.

On appeal, Avants raises the same issues raised in district

court. (For the first time on appeal, however, he also raises FED.

R. CRIM. P. 21 (governing transfers of cases between judicial

districts); we will not address it.) Like the parties and the

district court, we have been unable to find authority addressing

the issue posed by Avants. He does not challenge the jurisdiction

of the federal court; it had jurisdiction by virtue of the

violation of a federal law. 18 U.S.C. § 3231. Rather, he

challenges the venue in which sentencing took place. This question

of law is reviewed de novo.

Article III of the Constitution provides: “Trial of all

Crimes ... shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall

have been committed”. U.S. CONST. art. III § 2 cl. 3. The Sixth

Amendment limits the geographic scope even further, by providing

that the accused shall have a “trial, by an impartial jury of the

State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed”.

U.S. CONST. Amend. VI (emphasis added). Rule 18 provides, in

32
pertinent part, that “the government must prosecute an offense in

a district where the offense was committed”. FED. R. CRIM. P. 18

(emphasis added).

Avants’ reliance on the Sixth Amendment is misplaced. First,

there is no contention the jury was drawn from a constitutionally

improper area; this requirement was satisfied. But, the Sixth

Amendment is at issue for another reason: it guarantees “trial” by

jury. Because, for this non-death penalty case, the jury did not

participate in any respect in sentencing, this “trial” guarantee

does not encompass sentencing in this instance. Similarly, the

Article III requirement that “Trial ... be held in the State” where

the crime was committed does not include the venue for sentencing.

That leaves Rule 18, which does not speak of a trial, but

limits where the Government may “prosecute”. For the following

reasons, we need not decide whether sentencing is included in Rule

18's location of prosecutions. But see Bradley v. United States,

410 U.S. 605, 609-11 (1973) (interpreting the Comprehensive Drug

Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and stating “sentencing is

part of the prosecution”). Rule 18 is subject to Rule 52; Rule

52(a) provides that “[a]ny error ... that does not affect

substantial rights must be disregarded”. If there was error, it

did not affect substantial rights. To the contrary, if the

district court had not traveled to Texas, Avants would have stayed

33
in the facility there, without a judgment and unable to appeal. He

has not attempted to show otherwise.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is

AFFIRMED.

34