People v. Kowalski
492 Mich. 106
Mich.2012Background
- May 2008: Kowalski's brother and sister-in-law murdered; Kowalski charged with both murders.
- Kowalski was questioned four times; confession emerged during a late interview after a night in jail.
- Defendant sought to call two experts: Leo (false confessions/interrogation) and Wendt (psychological testing/mental state).
- Circuit court excluded Leo and Wendt testimony as unreliable or unhelpful under MRE 702 and MRE 403.
- Court of Appeals affirmed excluding Leo and Wendt literature-based testimony but redirected on Wendt’s psychological-testing testimony.
- This Court granted review to address admissibility under MRE 702, 403, and the Sixth Amendment right to present a defense, and remanded for further consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether false-confession testimony is admissible under MRE 702. | Kowalski argues expert false-confession literature is admissible. | Kowalski contends evidence is unreliable and unhelpful. | False-confession literature admissible if meeting MRE 702 standards. |
| Whether admission of false-confession literature violates MRE 403 balancing. | Kwowski argues probative value outweighs prejudice. | Kwowski asserts substantial prejudice and confusion. | Literature evidence may be excluded or limited under MRE 403; remand to reweigh. |
| Whether exclusion of Wendt’s psychological-testing testimony violates Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. | Kowalski contends exclusion impairs defense. | Kowalski argues the testing could be admissible independent of false-confession literature. | Exclusion as to the literature-based portion affirmed; remand to evaluate standalone testing under MRE 702 and 403. |
| Whether the circuit court correctly applied MRE 702 and 403 to Leo’s and Wendt’s testimony as a whole. | Kowalski argues gatekeeping was improper. | Kowalski contends proper reliability/fit was not assessed. | Remand for circuit court to reapply MRE 702/403 to admissibility. |
| Whether the Sixth Amendment right to present a defense was violated by excluding the expert testimony. | Right to present a complete defense supports admission. | Rules of evidence may constrain defense. | Exclusion does not violate the Sixth Amendment when properly applying MRE 702/403. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharm, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. (1993)) (gatekeeping reliability standard for expert testimony)
- Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler Corp., 470 Mich 749 (Mich. 2004) (Daubert-style reliability applied in Michigan)
- People v Peterson, 450 Mich 349 (Mich. 1995) (allowing expert explanation of behavior affecting credibility)
- People v Christel, 449 Mich 578 (Mich. 1995) (expert testimony to explain counterintuitive behavior in credibility issues)
- Crane v Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (U.S. (1986)) (constitutional protections for admissibility of confession-related evidence)
- Hamilton v State (Court of Appeals of Michigan), 163 Mich App 661 (Mich. App. 1987) (recognizes expertise on confession reliability beyond common knowledge)
- Rock v Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (U.S. (1987)) (limits on admitting hypnotically refreshed testimony under due process)
- United States v Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (U.S. (1998)) (polygraph evidence and jury role in credibility)
- Vent v State, 67 P.3d 661 (Alaska App. 2003) (admissibility of similar false-confession testimony)