United States v. Ganadonegro
805 F. Supp. 2d 1188
D.N.M.2011Background
- Death of nearly ten-month-old Q.S. in Ganadonegro's care; interview of Ganadonegro (Nov. 22, 2009) where he described shaking the child; Dr. Roll conducted a three-day psychological evaluation (July 2009) with tests (Wechsler, WAIS-III, MMPI-2, Rorschach, WRAT, Human Figure Drawings); Roll concluded multiple deficits and factors that could increase false admissions; Government moved to exclude Roll under Rule 702/Daubert with a March 2011 response and a May 13, 2011 evidentiary hearing; Court partially granted and denied the motion, excluding credibility conclusions but admitting voluntariness-related testimony to limited extent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability of Roll's methodology | Roll's tests are standard, peer-reviewed, normed, and generally accepted. | Roll's report is brief and insufficiently linked to specifics; concerns about reliability. | Partially in favor; testing methods deemed reliable. |
| Whether Roll can testify about Ganadonegro's credibility | Testimony could illuminate how language/personality affects truthfulness in statements. | Expert cannot vouch for credibility or determine truthfulness; infringes jury role. | Excluded; credibility-focused testimony not allowed. |
| Whether Roll's testimony on voluntariness is admissible | Roll can relate to cognitive factors affecting voluntariness and interview context. | Voluntariness issues should be addressed by the jury without expert opinion on voluntariness. | Admissible to the extent it addresses the existence of identifiable medical/psychological factors and their bearing on voluntariness. |
| Rule 403 balancing of prejudice and probative value | Testimony on voluntariness provides probative context without undue prejudice. | Any prejudicial impact could overwhelm probative value. | Court found probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice for the voluntariness portion. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Adams, 271 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2001) (exclusion of credibility-focused expert testimony; voluntariness context emphasized)
- United States v. Benally, 541 F.3d 990 (10th Cir. 2008) (recognizes admissibility of expert testimony on voluntariness with limits; distinguishes credibility issues)
- United States v. Shay, 57 F.3d 126 (1st Cir. 1995) (admissibility of psychiatric testimony on false confessions to illustrate phenomenon; limits on credibility)
- United States v. Hall, 93 F.3d 1337 (7th Cir. 1996) (testimony on susceptibility to interrogation; limits when it quotes credibility or specific defendant's condition)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (gatekeeping reliability/relevance standard for expert testimony)