United States v. Hendrix
2017 CAAF LEXIS 519
| C.A.A.F. | 2017Background
- A ten-year-old (Miss JK) alleged sexual abuse after waking in her home; initial statements were inconsistent about seeing the assailant and whether touching was over clothing or under.
- CID collected clothing; DNA testing showed an inconclusive, low-quality male profile that did not match Appellant.
- At Article 32, the investigating officer found the victim not credible and declined to refer charges; CID later conducted a voice-identification procedure and the victim identified Appellant's voice nine months after the incident.
- The voice lineup was prepared and administered by CID agents inexperienced with voice IDs, used six speakers without screening for similar voices, included speakers with speech impediment and a Jamaican accent, and presented whispered and louder versions of two sentences in each segment.
- Appellant moved to suppress the voice-identification evidence and to compel an audio/voice-identification expert consultant; the military judge denied both motions; at trial the Government elicited testimony about the voice ID (but did not admit the audio itself) and the panel convicted Appellant.
- The CAAF reviewed two preserved issues: denial of an expert consultant and admission of the voice-identification evidence; it affirmed denial of an expert consultant but reversed the conviction because the voice-identification evidence was inadmissible and prejudicial, authorizing a rehearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Hendrix) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Denial of request for pretrial expert consultant in audio forensic/voice ID | Expert consultant unnecessary; trial counsel relied on existing evidence and expert testimony at motions hearing sufficed | Defense argued necessity: expert assistance needed to evaluate procedure, demonstrate unreliability, and prepare defense | Denial affirmed — defense failed to show necessity or that denial caused fundamentally unfair trial; expert did testify at Article 39(a) hearing and scholarly resources were available |
| 2. Admission of voice-identification evidence (voice lineup) | Voice-ID was probative corroboration of victim’s identification; testimony about identification was admissible | Defense argued lineup was procedurally flawed, unreliable, had no probative value, and was highly prejudicial | Admission reversed — court held lineup had no probative value given procedural flaws, delay, participant selection, and was prejudicial because it substantially influenced the verdict in an otherwise weak case; findings and sentence set aside |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lloyd, 69 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denial of expert consultant)
- United States v. Bresnahan, 62 M.J. 137 (C.A.A.F.) (accused entitled to expert assistance on a showing of necessity)
- United States v. Gunkle, 55 M.J. 26 (C.A.A.F.) (necessity requires more than mere possibility of assistance)
- United States v. Anderson, 68 M.J. 378 (C.A.A.F.) (elements to show necessity for expert assistance)
- United States v. Flesher, 73 M.J. 303 (C.A.A.F.) (less deference when trial judge gives no explanation)
- United States v. Hills, 75 M.J. 350 (C.A.A.F.) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Brown, 510 F.3d 57 (1st Cir.) (voice ID can have considerable probative value in some circumstances)
- United States v. Clark, 535 F.3d 571 (7th Cir.) (evidence with no probative force is properly excluded)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (identification testimony is significant and courts should guard against suggestive procedures)
- United States v. Kerr, 51 M.J. 401 (C.A.A.F.) (framework for evaluating prejudice from erroneous evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Kelly, 39 M.J. 235 (C.M.A.) (defense counsel expected to consult primary and secondary materials to prepare defenses)
- United States v. Norman, 74 M.J. 144 (C.A.A.F.) (erroneous admission is prejudicial if it substantially influences members)
- Young v. Conway, 698 F.3d 69 (2d Cir.) (jurors may erroneously equate certainty with accuracy in ID testimony)
- United States v. Schiro, 679 F.3d 521 (7th Cir.) (discussing persuasive power of a witness’s asserted certainty of identification)