State v. Starling, 0104015882

On March 9, 2001, Darnell Evans (adult) and Damon Gist Jr. (5) were murdered in a Wilmington barbershop; Chauncey Starling was arrested April 27, 2001 and later indicted for two first‑degree murders and related offenses.
Starling was convicted in 2003 and sentenced to death; his convictions were reversed by the Delaware Supreme Court on December 14, 2016 and the case remanded for a new trial.
On remand the parties filed competing motions in limine: the State moved to exclude testimony of defense forensic‑investigation expert Robert Tressel; Starling moved to exclude evidence of his nickname "Smoke."
The court applied D.R.E. 702 and the Delaware/Daubert five‑part admissibility framework to evaluate Tressel's proffered expert testimony on the adequacy of the homicide investigation.
The court concluded Tressel is qualified, his opinions are tied to the case facts, and admissibility challenges go to weight not gatekeeping; the State’s motion to exclude Tressel was denied.
The court found the nickname "Smoke" carried a high risk of unfair prejudice with little probative value for identity here and granted Starling’s motion to exclude the nickname under D.R.E. 403.

Issue	State's Argument	Starling's Argument	Held
Admissibility of forensic investigation expert (Tressel)	Tressel’s opinions are irrelevant, speculative, and would confuse jury; detectives suffice to test the investigation	Tressel is a qualified forensic investigator whose expert opinion will assist the jury on adequacy of the homicide investigation	Denied — Tressel is qualified; testimony is admissible under D.R.E. 702; challenges go to weight and credibility rather than admissibility
Exclusion of nickname "Smoke"	Nickname is probative for identification	Nickname is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial; invites inference of violent character	Granted — probative value substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice under D.R.E. 403

Rauf v. State, 145 A.3d 430 (Del. 2016) (declaring Delaware's capital sentencing scheme unconstitutional)
Starling v. State, 882 A.2d 747 (Del. 2005) (prior appeal addressing conviction and sentence)
Starling v. State, 903 A.2d 758 (Del. 2006) (appellate decision affirming resentencing)
M.G. Bancorporation, Inc. v. Le Beau, 737 A.2d 513 (Del. 1999) (adopting Daubert standard in Delaware)
Bowen v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 906 A.2d 787 (Del. 2006) (applying Daubert factors)
Perry v. Berkley, 996 A.2d 1262 (Del. 2010) (expert competency and role of trial court gatekeeping)
McNally v. State, 980 A.2d 364 (Del. 2009) (expert testimony admissibility and tying methodology to facts)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (framework for admissibility of expert scientific evidence)