892 F. Supp. 2d 881
W.D. Mich.2012Background
- Government moves to exclude Defendant’s proffered expert Dr. Richard A. Leo under Rule 702.
- Daubert hearing held August 29, 2012; Leo testified by video.
- Leo is a JD/PhD and expert on false confessions; Defendant seeks testimony on coercive interrogation and false statements.
- Leo’s research and opinions rely on analyses of false confession cases and related literature.
- Court questions the relevance, reliability, and potential prejudice of Leo’s testimony to the charged murder case.
- Court grants the motion to exclude Leo’s testimony as unreliable and irrelevant under Daubert and Rule 403.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Leo’s testimony satisfies Rule 702 reliability | Government argues Leo's methods are unreliable and untestable. | Leo's research is peer-reviewed and scientifically credible. | Excluded; Leo’s methods unreliable and not fit for this case. |
| Whether Leo’s testimony is relevant to the facts | Leo would illuminate false confession phenomenon applicable to this case. | Dr. Leo’s research could explain false statements generally. | Excluded; not probative of issues in this case. |
| Whether the probative value of Leo’s testimony is substantially outweighed by risk of unfair prejudice | Leo would help jurors understand interrogation concepts. | Testimony would be helpful to defense theory. | Excluded under Rule 403 due to prejudice and confusion. |
| Whether there is a proper factual basis to apply Leo’s false confession framework to Defendant | Framework could classify statements as false in this context. | Framework is applicable to coercive settings generally. | Excluded; facts of this case do not mirror Leo’s studied contexts. |
| Whether the court should give a jury instruction instead of admitting expert testimony | Instruction could inform jurors about false statements. | No need for instruction if testimony is excluded; otherwise propose different instruction. | Instruction contemplated; testimony excluded; no need for expert to testify. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (gatekeeping regard to scientific validity)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. Supreme Court 1999) (extended gatekeeping to all expert testimony)
- Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (cited empirical concerns about interrogations and confessions)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 186 (U.S. Supreme Court 1997) (flexible gatekeeping; avoid ipse dixit)
- United States v. Jacques, 784 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D. Mass. 2011) (limits of laboratory-style studies; relevance to real cases)
- People v. Kowalski, 492 Mich. 106 (Mich. 2012) (false confession expert testimony admissibility considerations)
- United States v. Shay, 57 F.3d 126 (1st Cir. 1995) (psychological testimony on mental disorder and coercion admissibility)
- United States v. Hall, 93 F.3d 1337 (7th Cir. 1996) (admissibility of mental-condition testimony on susceptibility to coercion)
- State v. Wooden, 2008 WL 2814346 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) (exclusion of false confession research where not testable)
- United States v. Redlightning, 624 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirmed exclusion where no coercive tactic shown)