Russell v. United States
2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 156
D.C.2011Background
- December 23, 2006, approximately 3:50 a.m., Damon Warren was carjacked and robbed in the District of Columbia, with two young Black males described by Warren as the perpetrators.
- Warren described the driver as wearing a black North Face jacket and jeans, with no mask, and noted braids; he later described the attackers differently to police.
- Appellant Robert A. Russell was identified by Warren at a show-up after a police chase and pursuit, based on clothing and appearance seen near the wrecked vehicle.
- Police recovered Warren's driver's license and conducted a vehicle stop; Warren identified an unmasked suspect after hood was raised at the show-up.
- Defense sought to admit expert testimony from Dr. Lori Van Wallendael on eyewitness identification reliability; the trial court excluded the testimony, ruling it did not meet the first Dyas factor.
- On review, the DC Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, concluding more current scientific developments require deeper consideration of the Dyas factors before excluding such expert evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding eyewitness-identification expert testimony | Russell | United States | Remand required; possible new trial if expert admitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Dyas v. United States, 376 A.2d 827 (D.C. 1977) (three-factor test for admissibility of eyewitness-identification expert testimony)
- Benn v. United States, 978 A.2d 1257 (D.C. 2009) (recent scientific developments may require more than cursory Dyas analysis; remand for individualized consideration)
- Benn v. United States, Benn II, 978 A.2d 1257 (D.C. 2009) (remand to assess whether proffered expert testimony meets Dyas factors)
- Hager v. United States, 856 A.2d 1143 (D.C. 2004) (witness confidence vs. accuracy may be beyond lay comprehension; cited regarding lay understanding of psychology studies)
- Scott v. United States, 975 A.2d 831 (D.C. 2009) (excluded non-scientific corroboration may deprive defense of a meaningful opportunity to present evidence)
- Harris v. United States, 834 A.2d 106 (D.C. 2003) (Chapman standard for certain evidentiary errors involving witnesses)
- United States v. Mathis, 264 F.3d 321 (3d Cir. 2001) (memory distortion due to weapon presence not always apparent to jurors)