United States v. Hill
749 F.3d 1250
10th Cir.2014Background
- Hill convicted on multiple bank-robbery charges; Stanley Hill’s brother Vernon was convicted at trial while Stanley’s first trial ended in a mistrial for want of conviction.
- At the second trial, eyewitness and physical evidence tied to the East Pine residence supported the government’s theory that Vernon and Dejuan robbed the bank while Stanley acted as getaway driver.
- The government introduced testimony from FBI Agent Jones, an expert on deception, asserting Stanley’s interview showed deceit and that invoking God and statements of wanting to die indicated guilt.
- The court admitted Jones’s credibility opinion testimony without contemporaneous objection; the defense later argued it was plain error that affected substantial rights.
- Cell phone tower data and calls were presented to connect the Hills to the robbery, with Jones interpreting the data to support the government’s theory of Stanley’s involvement.
- The panel found plain error under 4-prong plain-error review, concluded the error affected substantial rights, and reversed and remanded to vacate Stanley Hill’s convictions and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony on credibility was admissible | Hill | ||
| Expert testimony on credibility is generally improper under Rule 702. | United States | ||
| The government argues some credibility-related opinions may be admissible under narrow circumstances. | Plain error; not admissible to opine on credibility. | ||
| Whether the plain error affected substantial rights | Hill | ||
| The error likely altered the trial outcome given Jones’s impact. | United States | ||
| If the evidence were weak, error might not affect substantial rights. | Yes; reasonable probability of different outcome. | ||
| Whether to exercise discretionary reversal under Rule 52(b) | Hill | ||
| The error undermines fairness and integrity of proceedings. | United States | ||
| Correction may be unnecessary if substantial prejudice is not shown. | Yes; reversal warranted to protect justice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Toledo, 985 F.2d 1462 (10th Cir. 1993) (credibility of witnesses generally not an appropriate subject for expert testimony)
- Charley, 189 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 1999) (expert testimony cannot vouch for credibility encroaching on jurors’ function)
- Velarde, 214 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2000) (expert testimony about child sexual abuse not fully adopted; credibility concerns noted)
- Samara, 643 F.2d 701 (10th Cir. 1981) (expert testimony cannot state witnesses are not credible; credibility determinations belong to jury)
- Benally, 541 F.3d 990 (10th Cir. 2008) (exclusion of expert testimony asserting defendant made false confession affirmed)