U.S. v. Latorre, 53 M.J. 179

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Scientific Evidence

1. if special knowledge is necessary to assist the trier of fact, experts may testify using information reasonably relied upon by other experts in the particular field; but the proffered expert testimony must be relevant and helpful to the fact-finder, and the basis of the expert opinion must be scientifically sound considering factors such as whether the theory has been tested, whether it has been reviewed by others in the area, and whether it has gained general acceptance
2. government did not lay an adequate foundation for expert testimony where: (1) there was no showing that expert’s methods and conclusions were accepted by the scientific community at large or had even been reviewed by it; (2) the expert’s conclusions were based upon his own work; (3) the expert’s description of his work was too cursory; (4) the expert’s work was based on a study group which was too limited; and (5) it was not apparent how this work, per se, was relevant or useful to the fact-finder
3. although government did not lay an adequate foundation to support scientific evidence concerning recidivism and future conduct of pedophiles, appellant was not prejudiced on sentencing where: (1) the government’s case was strong; (2) the defense case for leniency was unremarkable; and (3) the quality and materiality of the evidence was not readily apparent

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Evidence

1. although government did not lay an adequate foundation to support scientific evidence concerning recidivism and future conduct of pedophiles, appellant was not prejudiced on sentencing where: (1) the government’s case was strong; (2) the defense case for leniency was unremarkable; and (3) the quality and materiality of the evidence was not readily apparent

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. a four-part test is used to determine whether evidence adduced at trial was unduly prejudicial; the court evaluates: (1) the strength of the government’s case, (2) the defense theory, (3) the materiality of the evidence, and (4) the quality of the evidence