## Facts

- Ernestine Audry James was charged and convicted of aiding and abetting manslaughter in Indian country after her boyfriend, David Ogden, was shot and killed by James’s daughter, Jaylene Jeffries.
- James had a history of abusive and violent encounters with Ogden, particularly when Ogden was intoxicated, and she testified to prior assaults and threats she experienced and witnessed.
- Ogden also boasted to James about serious prior violent acts against others; James testified to these statements and to other violent incidents Ogden committed in her presence.
- On the night of the killing, after a party, Ogden assaulted Jaylene’s boyfriend, and Jaylene pursued Ogden.
- It was undisputed that James physically handed Jaylene a gun; the parties disputed whether James did so unprompted (Jaylene’s account) or after repeated requests with the intent only to “fend [Ogden] off” (James’s account).
- James asserted self-defense/defense of others, arguing she reasonably believed providing the gun was necessary given Ogden’s violence and the danger she perceived.
- The district court allowed extensive testimony about Ogden’s violent character but excluded police reports, court records, and a presentence report documenting Ogden’s prior violent acts because James had not known of those documents before the shooting.
- During deliberations, jurors asked questions suggesting doubt about whether Ogden’s prior acts actually occurred or were merely boasting; the court did not provide the excluded records.
- James was convicted and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment; a Ninth Circuit panel affirmed, and the court granted rehearing en banc.

## Issues

1. Whether, in a self-defense/defense-of-others case, the Federal Rules of Evidence permit exclusion of extrinsic records corroborating the decedent’s prior violent acts when offered to support the defendant’s credibility, even if the defendant did not know of those incidents at the time.
2. Whether excluding such corroborative evidence was harmless in light of other admitted testimony about the decedent’s violence.

## Decision

- The en banc Ninth Circuit reversed the conviction and remanded.
- The court held the district court erred by excluding corroborating documents of Ogden’s prior violent acts.
- The court concluded the excluded evidence was relevant to corroborate James’s testimony and assist the jury in evaluating credibility, not merely to prove James’s subjective state of mind.
- The court found the error was not harmless, citing the jury’s expressed uncertainty about whether Ogden’s prior violence was real.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence is relevant under Rules 401–402 if it has any tendency to make a consequential fact more or less probable; relevance is not limited to proof of the defendant’s state of mind.
- In a self-defense/defense-of-others case, extrinsic evidence corroborating the victim’s prior violent acts may be admissible to support the truthfulness of the defendant’s account and the jury’s assessment of credibility, even if the defendant was unaware of the specific acts at the time.
- Rule 403 does not justify wholesale exclusion of highly probative corroborative evidence absent a showing that unfair prejudice, confusion, or delay substantially outweighs its probative value.
- An evidentiary error is reversible when there is a reasonable likelihood it affected the verdict, including where juror questions show the excluded corroboration bore directly on a contested, outcome-determinative point.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that excluding documentary and third-party proof corroborating the decedent’s prior violence improperly restricted relevant evidence central to the jury’s evaluation of the defendant’s credibility and justification theory, and it reversed because the exclusion was not harmless.


United States v. James, 169 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 1999)