Austin v. United States, 64 A.3d 413

appellant Jonathan Austin was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree felony murder with aggravating circumstances and cruelty to children for Ronjai Butler’s death.
Ronjai Butler, 21 months old, died after injuries sustained in a home where appellant lived with his girlfriend Michelle Butler and her children.
Prosecution alleged appellant battered Ronjai; defense argued Ronjai died from natural causes or improper CPR.
Evidence included autopsy by DC Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Pierre-Louis (manner: homicide) and defense expert Dr. Kessler (contradicting cause of death).
The court addressed motions regarding cross-examination for bias, defense presentation of expert testimony, admissibility of CME testimony, and a motion for a new trial based on an inadvertent jury-room exhibit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Cross-examination for witness bias (CFSA inquiry)	Austin claims Butler’s CFSA bias inquiry would show motive to curry favor.	Austin asserts the cross-examination was improperly precluded to reveal bias.	No reversible error; trial court acted within discretion; no plain error.
Right to present a defense through expert testimony	Austin argues trial court blocked defense experts from testifying on alternative explanations.	Government argues objections were proper and testimony would be inadmissible or irrelevant.	No abuse of discretion; any error was harmless.
Admission of Chief Medical Examiner testimony (Dr. Pierre-Louis)	Austin contends CME lacked proper board certification; waiver should not validate testimony.	Waiver statute permitted CME to serve; court properly admitted testimony based on experience.	Waiver valid and trial court did not abuse discretion; CME adequately qualified.
New trial due to inadvertent jury-room exhibit	Exhibit 2 (unadmitted photo) biased jurors toward alternative suspect.	Exhibit was inadvertent and cumulative; could not have substantially swayed verdict.	No abuse; new trial denied; evidence was cumulative and did not substantially sway the jury.

Gardner v. United States, 698 A.2d 990 (D.C. 1997) (Sixth Amendment confrontation rights and witness credibility are central to cross-examination rights)
Van Arsdall v. United States, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (Trial court may impose limits on cross-examination to prevent harassment and confusion)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (Plain-error review requires error that affects substantial rights)
Porter v. United States, 561 A.2d 994 (D.C. 1989) (Bias proffer requires facts showing genuine bias and relevance of questions)
Brown v. United States, 726 A.2d 149 (D.C. 1999) (Proper scope of impeachment for prior bad acts; cannot prove propensity)