United States v. Avitia-Guillen
680 F.3d 1253
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Defendant Avitia-Guillen, a Mexican citizen, entered the U.S. lawfully in 1955 and obtained lawful permanent residence in 1988.
- He was deported in June 1996 after being convicted of an aggravated felony.
- ICE located Avitia-Guillen in Denver, Colorado, in May 2011 and he was indicted for being found in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2).
- At trial, fingerprint examiner Wendy Bacchi testified the 2011 fingerprints matched those from 1996 deportation proceedings; defense challenged Bacchi's qualifications.
- The district court overruled objections to Bacchi's qualifications, admitting her testimony; the jury found Avitia-Guillen guilty and he was sentenced to 41 months in prison.
- On appeal, Avitia-Guillen challenged the district court’s gatekeeping record for Bacchi’s testimony; the issue centers on Rule 702 reliability findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court adequately demonstrated gatekeeping reliability | Government argues the court applied Rule 702 and made sufficient findings. | Avitia-Guillen contends the court failed to provide explicit, adequate reliability findings for Bacchi's testimony. | Affirmed; district court's findings were adequate to demonstrate gatekeeping. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 F.3d 579 (U.S. (1993)) (test for reliability of expert testimony in general)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. (1999)) ( Daubert standard applies to technical and specialized knowledge)
- United States v. Nacchio, 555 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2009) (requires district court to determine qualification and reliability of expert)
- Goebel v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co., 215 F.3d 1083 (10th Cir. 2000) (gatekeeping requires explicit on-record findings of reliability)
- United States v. Velarde, 214 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2000) (reliability determination required for expert testimony)
- United States v. Roach, 582 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2009) (need basis for qualifications; lack of findings can be error)
- United States v. Dodge, 328 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir. 2003) (admission of expert testimony without gatekeeping is an abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Nichols, 169 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 1999) (context for appellate review of gatekeeping findings)