US v. Christie, Nos. 11-2106 & 11-2221 (10th Cir. 6/11/13): The Tenth Circuit affirms Rebecca Christie's second-degree murder and child abuse convictions. The seizure and search of a computer did not violate Ms. Christie's rights. Her husband, who turned the computer over to the agent, was at least a co-owner of the computer and he consented to its seizure. Ms. Christie did not object. The government could assume any fourth amendment interest in the possession of the computer had been relinquished. Challenge to the second search warrant based on the Fourth Amendment's particularity clause is rejected because one clause of the warrant limited the search to information related to the murder, neglect and abuse of the child. The Court rejects an argument that the defense never made about the propriety of how the search was conducted (I looked at the brief filed in this case, and all the argument was directed at the sufficiency of the warrant). However, for future reference, if the defense challenges a computer search, be prepared to present evidence at the suppression hearing suggesting how protocols followed by the government were unreasonable or insufficiently particular. The Court gives rejects the argument that the government unreasonably delayed getting the warrant.
Ms. Christie's Sixth Amendment rights were not meaningfully violated by the exclusion of Mr. Wulf (ex-husband and co-defendant who was severed from the trial) from the courtroom during the testimony of his daughter. Concern about the daughter's psychological well-being was good enough.
The government cross-appealed an Assimilative Crimes Act (ACA) issue, wanting the state homicide charges that were dismissed before sentencing reinstated. The court had allowed the charges to go to the jury. "We affirm the district court's chosen middle path." Clearly, the district court had to dismiss the charges as a matter of law after trial, and the Tenth says it just doesn't have to deal with whether the charges should have been dismissed before trial because any such error was surely harmless. The Court spends a lot of time discussing the ACA and Lewis issue, only to conclude it doesn't have to have deal with the issue. Theoretically, Ms. Christie has a point when she complains about being prejudiced by the multiple charges at trial. The jury instructions were great; the evidence overwhelming; no problem. Chief Judge Briscoe addresses the ACA issue separately but ultimately reaches the same conclusion.