U.S. v. Honken

Page 970

378 F.Supp.2d 970

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Dustin Lee HONKEN, Defendant.

No. CR 01-3047-MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division.

July 16, 2004.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Alfredo G. Parrish, Parrish, Kruidenier, Moss, Dunn, Montgomery, Boles & Gribble, LLP, Des Moines, IA, for Defendant.

Charles J. Williams, U.S. Attorney's Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES' PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS ON ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

BENNETT, Chief Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.  INTRODUCTION ..............................................................976
      A.  Background ............................................................976
          1.  The 1993 case .....................................................976
          2.  The 1996 case .....................................................977
      B.  Procedural Background To The Present Case .............................977
          1.  Indictments in the present case ...................................977
          2.  Pre-trial motions .................................................981
 II.  LEGAL ANALYSIS ............................................................981
      A.  The Government's Motions ..............................................981
          1.  Cutkomp's instances of indecent exposure ..........................981
              a.  Arguments of the parties ......................................982
              b.  Analysis ......................................................983
          2.  Statements of decedents ...........................................986
              a.  The statements in question ....................................986
                    i.  Statements by DeGeus ....................................986
                   ii.  Statements by Nicholson .................................987
              b.  Admissibility of DeGeus's statements ..........................987
                    i.  Arguments of the parties ................................987
                   ii.  Analysis ................................................989
              c.  Admissibility of Nicholson's statements .......................994

i.  Arguments of the parties ................................994
                   ii.  Analysis ................................................995
          3.  Discussion of aspects of the death penalty ........................995
              a.  Arguments of the parties ......................................995
              b.  Analysis ......................................................996
          4.  Exclusion of experts .............................................1000
      B.  The Defendant's Motion ...............................................1000
          1.  Evidence of Honken's escape attempt ..............................1001
              a.  Arguments of the parties .....................................1001
              b.  Analysis .....................................................1001
          2.  Books seized from Honken's residence .............................1003
              a.  Arguments of the parties .....................................1003
              b.  Analysis .....................................................1004
          3.  The Ecstacy Cookbook .............................................1004
              a.  Arguments of the parties .....................................1005
              b.  Analysis .....................................................1005
          4.  Publications and order form purportedly seized from Honken's
locker .........................................................1005
              a.  Underlying factual dispute ...................................1005
              b.  Arguments of the parties .....................................1006
              c.  Analysis .....................................................1006
          5.  Testimony of former attorney .....................................1007
              a.  Arguments of the parties .....................................1007
              b.  Analysis .....................................................1008
          6.  Honken's membership in the Odinists ..............................1008
              a.  Arguments of the parties .....................................1008
              b.  Analysis .....................................................1009
III.  CONCLUSION ...............................................................1009

In this death penalty case, involving the alleged murder of five witnesses to the defendant's drug-trafficking or other alleged criminal conduct,¹ the parties have now filed a second series of pre-trial motions on the admissibility of various kinds of evidence. The evidence at issue in the present motions is so varied as to defy ready categorization, although the motions do involve questions of the admissibility of both testimonial and physical evidence.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background

1. The 1993 case

As in the ruling on the first series of pre-trial motions, the background to these motions begins with a survey of the prior prosecutions of defendant Dustin Lee Honken in this judicial district. Honken was first prosecuted for drug-trafficking offenses in this district in 1993 in Case No. CR 93-3019 ("the 1993 case"). As the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals explained,

In April 1993, a grand jury in the Northern District of Iowa indicted appellee for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. After the disappearance of one or more prospective prosecution witnesses, the government dismissed the indictment.

United States v. Honken, 184 F.3d 961, 963 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1056, 120 S.Ct. 602, 145 L.Ed.2d 500 (1999). Thus, the first prosecution of Honken in this district did not lead to a conviction.

2. The 1996 case

Honken was again indicted on drug-trafficking charges on April 11, 1996, this time with co-defendant Timothy Cutkomp, in Case No. CR 96-3004-MWB ("the 1996 case"). Count 1 of the Indictment in the 1996 case charged Honken and Cutkomp with conspiracy, between about 1993 and February 7, 1996, to distribute, manufacture, and attempt to manufacture 1000 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine and 100 grams or more of pure methamphetamine. Indictment in Case No. CR 96-3004-MWB (N.D.Iowa). Count 2 of the original Indictment in the 1996 case charged Honken with possessing and aiding and abetting the possession of listed chemicals, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(d) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and Count 3 charged possession and aiding and abetting the possession of drug paraphernalia intending to use such paraphernalia to manufacture and attempt to manufacture methamphetamine and listed chemicals, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(6) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, respectively. Id., Counts 2 & 3. A superseding indictment filed later in the 1996 case restated the first three charges and added a fourth charge of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine. See Superseding Indictment in Case No. CR 96-3004-MWB (N.D.Iowa).

Eventually, in 1997, Honken pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge and the charge of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, i.e., Counts 1 and 4, and the government dismissed Counts 2 and 3. See, e.g., Honken, 184 F.3d at 963. The court held an episodic sentencing hearing on December 15 and 16, 1997, and February 17, 18, and 24, 1998. Honken testified under oath on February 18 and 24, 1998. After the government's appeal of the sentence originally imposed by the undersigned, see id., Honken was resentenced on January 25, 2000. Honken then unsuccessfully appealed his sentence, see United States v. Honken, 2 Fed.Appx. 611, 2001 WL 66287 (8th Cir.2001). Honken is now serving his sentence on Counts 1 and 4 in the 1996 case.

B. Procedural Background To The Present Case

1. Indictments in the present case

The present prosecution began with the filing of a seventeen-count indictment against Honken on August 30, 2001, which brought a variety of charges arising from Honken's alleged murder and solicitation of murder of witnesses to his alleged drug-trafficking and other criminal activity, which had, for example, allegedly brought the 1993 prosecution to its abrupt conclusion and had been intended to impede prosecution of the 1996 case. On August 23, 2002, a Superseding Indictment was handed down in this case, amending Counts 8 through 17. See Superseding Indictment (docket no. 46). The court will examine the charges in this case in more detail as a prelude to a discussion of the admissibility of certain evidence at trial of those charges.

Counts 1 through 5 of the Superseding Indictment charge "witness tampering." More specifically, each count alleges that Honken "did willfully, deliberately, maliciously, and with premeditation and malice aforethought, unlawfully kill" one of five witnesses: Gregory Nicholson, Lori Duncan (Nicholson's girlfriend), Amber Duncan and Kandi Duncan (Lori Duncan's daughters, ages 6 and 10), and Terry DeGeus. Count 1 alleges that Gregory Nicholson was murdered

1) with the intent to prevent Gregory Nicholson from attending or providing testimony at an official proceeding in the Northern District of Iowa, Case Nos. 93-20 M and CR 93-3019 [the 1993

case]; 2) with intent to prevent Gregory Nicholson from communicating to a law enforcement officer of the United States, information relating to the commission or possible commission of federal offenses, including: the distribution of methamphetamine, the manufacture of methamphetamine and conspiracy to distribute and manufacture methamphetamine, a Schedule II Controlled Substance, in violation of Title 21 United States Code, Sections 841 and 846; and 3) with intent to retaliate...