U.S. v. Huberty, 53 M.J. 369

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Expert / Scientific Testimony

1. abuse of discretion is the proper standard by which to review a decision to admit or exclude expert evidence; an appellate court will not reverse unless a ruling is manifestly erroneous
2. there are six factors to be weighed by a military judge when he is determining whether expert testimony is admissible: (1) the qualification of the expert, MRE 702; (2) the subject matter of the expert testimony, MRE 702; (3) the basis for the expert testimony, MRE 703; (4) the legal relevance of the evidence, MREs 401 and 402; (5) the reliability of the evidence, MRE 401; and (6) whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs other considerations, MRE 403
3. the military judge did not error in excluding appellant’s proffered expert testimony about the characteristics of an exhibitionist where: (1) appellant could not establish that the theories underlying this testimony had gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community; (2) no studies had been published supporting the underlying theories of the evidence; (3) the theories had not been subjected to peer review; and (4) the theories had not been subjected to testing
4. an expert’s extrapolation that, because he could not classify appellant as an exhibitionist, appellant could be eliminated as someone who would commit the charged act of indecent exposure, constitutes improper use of profile evidence
5. military judge did not err by admitting testimony of government expert to explain the victim’s behavior with respect to appellant differently than explained by a defense expert; the testimony was admitted as rebuttal and to explain that the victim’s behavior was consistent with a theory that appellant had “groomed” her, and not for the purposes of showing that appellant fit a profile

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Witnesses: Experts

1. abuse of discretion is the proper standard by which to review a decision to admit or exclude expert evidence; an appellate court will not reverse unless a ruling is manifestly erroneous
2. there are six factors to be weighed by a military judge when he is determining whether expert testimony is admissible: (1) the qualification of the expert, MRE 702; (2) the subject matter of the expert testimony, MRE 702; (3) the basis for the expert testimony, MRE 703; (4) the legal relevance of the evidence, MREs 401 and 402; (5) the reliability of the evidence, MRE 401; and (6) whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs other considerations, MRE 403
3. the military judge did not error in excluding appellant’s proffered expert testimony about the characteristics of an exhibitionist where: (1) appellant could not establish that the theories underlying this testimony had gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community; (2) no studies had been published supporting the underlying theories of the evidence; (3) the theories had not been subjected to peer review; and (4) the theories had not been subjected to testing
4. an expert’s extrapolation that, because he could not classify appellant as an exhibitionist, appellant could be eliminated as someone who would commit the charged act of indecent exposure, constitutes improper use of profile evidence
5. military judge did not err by admitting testimony of government expert to explain the victim’s behavior with respect to appellant differently than explained by a defense expert; the testimony was admitted as rebuttal and to explain that the victim’s behavior was consistent with a theory that appellant had “groomed” her, and not for the purposes of showing that appellant fit a profile

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. abuse of discretion is the proper standard by which to review a decision to admit or exclude expert evidence; an appellate court will not reverse unless a ruling is manifestly erroneous