Patterson v. United States
2012 D.C. App. LEXIS 64
D.C.2012Background
- Guilt established for armed robbery and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence (PFCV); sentences 108 months plus five years supervised release, concurrent.
- Appellant sought to introduce expert eyewitness identification testimony; trial court denied admission.
- Several later trial proceedings included different judges; the defense argued the exclusion violated the right to present a defense.
- Physical and documentary evidence tied appellant to the crime scene, motel room, and stolen property found with him; victim identified appellant at trial.
- Post-robbery conduct included use of victim’s phone and altered checks, leading to corroborative evidence strengthening identification.
- Appellant challenged trial conduct under various claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel on § 23-110 motion, and prosecutorial remarks during closing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of eyewitness identification expert | Appellant argues Dyas test requires expert; corroboration irrelevant | Corroboration should not bar expert when helpful to jury | Exclusion was harmless given corroboration; no reversal necessary |
| Right to present a defense via expert testimony | Exclusion denied meaningful defense | Rules balanced probative value against prejudice; defense still presented | No constitutional error; defense presented and defense theory preserved |
| Monroe-Farrell inquiry on counsel withdrawal | Trial should have Monroe-Farrell inquiry | No pretrial challenge to effectiveness; not preserved for this trial | No error; no Monroe-Farrell reversible issue |
| Right to proceed pro se | Appellant should have right to represent self | No positive demand to proceed pro se; frustration not enough | Faretta rights not implicate; no reversal |
| Prosecutorial closing argument | Government’s use of malarkey/garbage improper; sua sponte correction needed | Argument within permissible scope; no plain error given evidence strength | No plain error; words found to be within permissible argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Dyas v. United States, 376 A.2d 832 (D.C.1977) (three-factor test for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Benn v. United States (Benn II), 978 A.2d 1257 (D.C.2009) (corroboration affects abuse of discretion in excluding expert testimony)
- Hager v. United States, 856 A.2d 1143 (D.C.2004) (corroboration reduces likelihood of abuse of discretion in exclusion)
- Green v. United States, 718 A.2d 1042 (D.C.1998) (context for expert testimony admissibility considerations)
- Heath v. United States, 26 A.3d 266 (D.C.2011) (right to present a defense; standard for materiality and prejudice)