United States v. Rahman Fulton
837 F.3d 281
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- May 25, 2012 armed robbery of a PNC bank; stolen cash stack contained an active GPS tracker that led police to 2–6 John Avenue (a two-family home) and to fragments in a nearby backyard after the device was destroyed.
- Rahman Fulton lived in one half of 2–6 John Avenue; Ricardo Barnes lived in the other half. GPS data clustered in the southwest corner of the building (an area that included Fulton’s bedroom and a shared kitchen) for roughly 60–90 seconds after the robbery.
- Fulton made a brief call at 4:19:12 p.m. to Karina Echevarria seconds after the GPS disruption; prosecution emphasized this as evidence he knew of the robbery before police arrived nearby.
- FBI agents (Scartozzi and Lt. Gomez) testified about (a) phone records suggesting Barnes received a call at the robbery time, and (b) visual comparisons of the surveillance video to photos of Barnes and Fulton; defense witnesses who knew Fulton testified he did not match the robber’s appearance.
- Dr. Richard Fuller (GPS expert) explained error ellipses and opined the device was most likely in the southwest corner of 2–6 John during the relevant interval, but he did not definitively state the device was inside Fulton’s bedroom.
Issues
| Issue | Fulton’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Scartozzi’s lay opinion that Barnes was on the phone at robbery time (Rule 701) | Scartozzi’s testimony improperly opined on a disputed fact (Barnes was on the phone); phone records only show an incoming call, not that it was answered. | Agent’s lay opinion was based on phone records and helped explain investigative decisions. | Admission was error under Rule 701(b) (not helpful to jury) but the error was harmless; no relief. |
| Admissibility of Gomez and Scartozzi’s lay opinions comparing appearances (Rule 701) | Officers lacked sufficient familiarity to offer helpful identification comparisons; their testimony usurped the jury’s role. | Opinions were probative to show why investigators ruled out Barnes and to rebut defense ID evidence. | Admission was error (not helpful under Rule 701) but harmless given other evidence (GPS, call to Echevarria, defense witnesses). |
| Whether Gomez’s height/counter testimony required expert qualification (Rule 702/Daubert) | Gomez’s height inference allegedly relied on specialized reverse-projection photogrammetry and should have required expert qualification. | Gomez banked at the branch, knew counter heights personally, and gave lay opinion based on personal knowledge. | Testimony treated as permissible lay opinion; even if error, not plain or prejudicial. |
| Prosecutor’s closing statements about GPS (mischaracterizing Fuller’s testimony) | Prosecutor misstated that Fuller placed the GPS inside Fulton’s bedroom for 90 seconds and overstated GPS precision, prejudicing the jury. | Closing argument may draw reasonable inferences; Fuller’s testimony supported an inference the device was in the southwest portion that included Fulton’s room. | Statements were at most slight mischaracterizations; not plain error or prejudicial in context of the full record. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stadtmauer, 620 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 2010) (lay-opinion limitations where agent merely dresses argument as evidence)
- United States v. Anderskow, 88 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1996) (lay opinion inadmissible when jury equally able to draw same inference)
- United States v. Dicker, 853 F.2d 1103 (3d Cir. 1988) (excluding agent interpretation of plain conversation recordings)
- United States v. Meises, 645 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2011) (case agent’s inferences inadmissible when jury hears same evidence)
- United States v. Jackman, 48 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1995) (permitting lay identification where witnesses had superior familiarity)
- United States v. Watson, 171 F.3d 695 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (prosecutorial misstatements can require reversal where error goes to a central issue and case is close)
- United States v. Mastrangelo, 172 F.3d 288 (3d Cir. 1999) (prosecutor’s repeated misstatements about stipulation were prejudicial; curative instruction ineffective)