United States v. Pritchard
993 F. Supp. 2d 1203
C.D. Cal.2014Background
- Defendants Pritchard and Johnson are charged with conspiracy and armed bank robbery and related firearm charges based on DNA evidence from crime-scene items.
- Government’s DNA expert Jeanne Putinier performed DNA tests on a Superman baseball hat, ski mask, pistol, and windshield interior, plus statistical population frequency estimates for each sample.
- Defendants moved to exclude Putinier’s population frequency statistics, arguing lack of qualification, unreliable methodology, Confrontation Clause issues, and Rule 403 prejudice.
- A Daubert hearing was held; court concluded Putinier’s methods and testimony are admissible under Rule 702 after evaluating Daubert factors.
- Court also held that external databases and software used by Putinier do not violate the Confrontation Clause and that Rule 403 balancing favors admission due to high probative value.
- Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude the statistical analyses was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Putinier is qualified as an expert on population frequency statistics. | Pritchard/Johnson contend she is not qualified to offer statistical testimony. | Pritchard/Johnson argue lack of sufficient qualifications and reliability. | Qualified under Rule 702; extensive education, training, and experience support reliability. |
| Whether Putinier’s population frequency methodology satisfies Daubert reliability. | Putinier’s method is scientifically valid using product rule with recognized databases. | Methodology and data sources are unreliable or improperly applied. | Daubert factors satisfied; methodology deemed reliable and admissible. |
| Whether Confrontation Clause concerns require exclusion of Putinier’s statistical testimony. | External databases/software are non-testimonial; do not implicate confrontation rights. | Statistical sources could be testimonial or improperly introduced as evidence against defendants. | No Confrontation Clause violation; external sources treated as non-testimonial. |
| Whether Rule 403 warrants excluding Putinier’s population frequency estimates. | Estimates are highly probative and properly explained to the jury. | Statistics risk prejudicing/informing the jury improperly (prosecutor’s fallacy). | Not excluded; probative value outweighs potential prejudice with proper framing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc., 740 F.3d 457 (9th Cir. 2014) (district court Daubert gatekeeping duty; admissibility standard)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (gatekeeping reliability of expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (flexible Daubert standards for non-scientific experts)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause and testimonial vs non-testimonial statements)
- Chischilly v. United States, 30 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 1994) (Daubert factors; product rule methodology admissibility)
- United States v. Shea, 957 F. Supp. 331 (D. N.H. 1997) (random match probability and Daubert-compliant methodology)
- Soto v. California, 21 Cal.4th 512 (Cal. 1999) (product rule acceptance under Kelly standard)
- Gaines v. United States, 979 F. Supp. 1429 (S.D. Fla. 1997) (federal population databases tested and reliable for forensic use)