United States v. Roach
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14389
8th Cir.2011Background
- Roach was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse of a child in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c) and 2246(2)(D).
- Roach challenged the district court's admission of expert testimony by Dr. Edward Mailloux regarding emotional and behavioral characteristics of sexually abused children.
- The district court admitted the testimony, applying the standard that expert evidence may assist the trier of fact under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the abuse-of-discretion review.
- Roach argued Mailloux was not qualified due to lack of formal training in child psychology/psychiatry, relying on on-the-job experience and conference attendance instead.
- The government argued Rule 702 crediting practical experience over formal academic credentials supported Mailloux's qualification.
- The Eighth Circuit held Mailloux qualified and that there was a sufficient foundation for admitting his testimony, affirming the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mailloux's testimony was properly admitted | Roach contends Mailloux was unqualified. | Government contends Rule 702 allows his testimony based on experience. | Admission not an abuse of discretion; qualified and sufficiently grounded. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bailey, 571 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for expert testimony rulings)
- United States v. Whitted, 11 F.3d 782 (8th Cir. 1993) (experts may inform juries about characteristics of sexually abused children)
- United States v. Anderson, 446 F.3d 870 (8th Cir. 2006) (Rule 702 qualifications can be based on practical experience)
- Fox v. Dannenberg, 906 F.2d 1253 (8th Cir. 1990) (emphasizes non-academic qualifications acceptable under Rule 702)