2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-29-2009 

# U S A v . Mi l l hou se P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-4551

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du . Re c omme nde d C it a t ion
" U SA v . M i l l hous e " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 589. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/589NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 07- 4551
UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. KA REEM M I LLHO USE, A ppel l ant APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

( D . C . C r i m . N o. 06- cr - 00285- 1) D i s t r i ct J udge: H onor abl e J uan R . Sanchez Subm i t t ed U nder T hi r d C i r cui t L A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember 21, 2009
B efor e: B A R R Y , FI SH E R and J O R D A N , C i r cui t J udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: Sept ember 29, 2009)

OP I NI ON B A R R Y , C i r cui t J udge Appe l l ant Kar e e m Mi l l hous e wa s c onvi c t e d by ajury of thr e e c ount s of bank robb er y , two coun ts of

ar m ed bankrobb er

y , one coun t of H ob bs Act r ob bery , andthre e c ount s of r e l a t e d fi r e arm s offe ns e s . W e wi l l a ffi rm the judgm e nt

of c onvi c t i on.-2- I. M illh o u se w as ch arg edin co n n ectio n w ith six sep arate ro b b eries, all o ccu rrin g in Phi l a de l phi aove r

as e ve n- we e k pe r i od i n 2006. W he n he wa s arr e s t e d on the day of the f in al ro b b ery , h e p ro v id eda d etailedw ritten co n f essio n to th e F B I as to all six ro b b eries. A n acco m

p lice, T erren ce H aw k in s, w as also ch arg edw ith th ree o f th e ro b b eries; H aw k in s p ledg u ilty

an dtestif

iedag ain st M illh o u se at trial. Beca use we wri te on ly

fo r the part ie s, we need no t r evie w the fact s of eac h ro b b ery o r th e ex ten siv e, if

n o t alto g eth er o v erw h elm in g , ev id en ce o f M illh o u se’s g u ilt. W e not e , howe ve r , tha t

thi s e vi de nc e i nc l ude d s urve i l l anc e phot ogr a phs ; the t e s t i m ony

of n u m ero u s v ictim

tellers, sto re clerk s, an do th ers (in clu d in g f o u r w h o id en tif

iedM illh o u se at tr ia l) ; t he te st im on y

of Hawk ins; Mill ho use’ s 14-page conf es si on ; andph y si ca l e vi de nc e i nc l ud i ng fi ng e r pr i nt s , apa l m

pr i nt , abo ot

pr i nt , andDN A. T h e ev en ts o f

M ay 1 , 2 0 0 6 , h o w ev er, are relev an t to th is ap p eal, an dw e w ill b rief ly d escrib e th em . O n M ay

1 , M illh o u se ro b b eda Win e an dS p irits S h o p p e in Ph il adel ph ia

at gu np oint, t aking m on ey

and two bo tt le s of cog nac, wh il e Hawkins wait ed out s i de i n abl ue Che vr ol e t Cor s i c a . Aft e r

tha t r obbe ry , Hawki ns dr ove Mi l l hous e t o the near by East River Bank and wait ed in the c ar wh il e Mil lhou se robb ed the t el le rs at gu np oint, t aking b ags of cas h w hich incl ud ed bait m on ey with prer ec orded ser ia l n u m b ers. M illh o u se an dH aw k in s f ledth e scen e in th e C o rsica. Two Phi l a de l phi apol i c e offi c e r s , havi ng r e c e i ve d ar a di o r e port de s c r i bi ng a-3-

Cor s i c ai n whi c h two bl a c k m a l e s we r e dr i vi ng, a ppr oa c he d the Cor s i c awi th we a pons dr awn whe n the y

s aw i t s t oppe d a t

atr a ffi c l i ght

afe w bl oc ks fr om

the bank. The of fice rs ordered Hawkins and M il lhou se no t t o m ov e, bu t Hawkins disobey ed the order and c aus e d the c ar

t o jum p ac ur b and c r a s h i nt o an ove r

pa s s s upport . Hawki ns and Mi l l ho us e fl e d; Hawk i ns wa s arr e s t e d s ho r t l y the r e a ft e r . Mi l l ho us e wa s arr e s t e d two w eek s later, f

o llo w in g h is ro b b ery

o f C itizen s B an k . Th e po l i c e fo un d a

hand gu n o n the gr ou ndou t s i de the c ar andm on e y

andtwo bott l e s of c ogna c i ns i de the c ar . Vi c t i m s of both r obbe r i e s i de nt i fi e d the c ar , and the serial n u m

b ers o f so m e o f th e cu rren cy

f o u n din th e car m atch edth e n u m b ers o f th e b ait m one y . A s hort

di s t anc e fr om

the c r a s h s i t e , offi c e r s found an Ea s t Ri ve r Bank ba g and a one - dol l ar

bi l l , both c ont a i ni ng r e ddi s h s t a i ns l a t e r c onfi rm e d t o be bl ood. Si m i l ar s t a i ns w ere f o u n din sid e th e car. A t trial, v ictim s o f

b o th ro b b eries testif

iedth at, at th e tim e o f

th e ro b b eries, Mi l l hous e ’ s wr i s t

ha d be e n bl e e di ng, and DNA ana l y s i s s howe d tha t the DNA found on th e E ast R iv er B an kb ag , o n e-d o llar b ill, an din sid e th e car w as a co m p lete m atch w ith hi s DNA. The gove rnm e nt offe r e d Be njam i n Le vi n, afor e ns i c s c i e nt i s t wi th the P h ilad elp h ia P o lice D ep artm en t’s D N A lab , as an ex p ert in D N A testin g , to testif y b o th t o h i s de t e rm i nat i onthat

Mi l l ho us e ’ s DN A w a s ac om pl e t e m a t c h w i th the DN A coll ec te d f

rom the s ce ne and h is op inion as t o the prob abil it y of find ing a si m il ar

m at ch i n an unr e l a t e d popul a t i on. Mi l l hous e obje c t e d pr i m ar i l y t o tha t part of Le vi n’ s opi ni on-4-

havi ng t o do wi th popul a t i on s t a t i s t i c s and popul a t i on fr e que nc y , ar gui ng tha t the go vernm ent fai le d to d is cl ose these base s for the opinion in it s s ub m is si on s und er Fe de r a l Rul e of Cr i m i na l Pr oc e dur e 16 and tha t thi s ty pe of t e s t i m ony

wa s unr e l i abl e and sh o u ldb e ex clu d edu n d er F ed eral Ru le o f E v id en ce 7 0 2 . T h e D istrict C o u rt reso lv edth e p arties’ d isco v ery d isp u te b y

p erm ittin g M illh o u se t o voi r di r e Le vi n out s i de the pr e s e nc e of the jury s o tha t Mi l l hous e c oul d “ e xpl or e the b asis o f [ L ev in ’s] o p in io n ,” an dg av e M illh o u se ex tra tim e in w h ich to p rep are cro ssexam inat ion. In it s Rule 702 anal y si s, the Cou rt fo un d that “ the who le comm un it y re li es o n th is ty p e o f in f o rm atio n ,” an daccep tedL ev in as an ex p ert in f o ren sic D N A an aly sis and i nt e r pr e t a t i on. ( App. a t

264, 270. ) Le vi n the n t e s t i fi e d be for e the jury tha t he us e d a co m p u ter p ro g ram

calledP o p S tats an dth e P en n sylv an ia S tate P o lice D atab ase to c a l c ul a t e the popul a t i on fr e que nc y of Mi l l hous e ’ s DNA pr ofi l e . He t e s t i fi e d tha t the po pu lati on frequency

fo r Mil lhou se ’s DN A p rofile , r epre se nting the nu m ber of tim es that the pr ofi l e woul d be found i n the popul a t i on, wa s 1 i n 19. 0 tr i l l i on for the Afr i c anAm e r i c an popul a t i on, 1 i n 18. 0 tr i l l i on i n the Cauc a s i an popul a t i on, and 1 i n 2. 53 tr i l l i on i n the Hi s pani c popul a t i on. Th e l as t wit

ness was Speci al Ag ent Tho m as Perz ic hill i of the FB I, wh o w it ness ed M illh o u se’s w ritten co n f

essio n . In h is co n f

essio n , M illh o u se stated : “I w as j u st tryin g to ge t m one y t o pay adr ug de bt s o I woul d not

ge t ki l l e d. ” ( Supp. App. a t

314. ) The part i e s ha d a gr e e d, pr i or

t o tr i a l , tha t

the wor d “ dr

ug” woul d be r e da c t e d fr om the-5-

st at em ent andwo uld n ot com e i n at tri al . Agent Perz ic hill i, ho wever, incl ud ed the word “drug” wh en re ading the conf es si on to the jury

al thou gh the wri tt en vers ion, proj ec te d on to the jurors’ m on it ors during the te st im on y , did no t c on ta in the word “drug .” Mill ho use m ov ed fo r a

m is tr ia l, ar gu ing that he was un fair ly prejud ic ed by

the a gent’s t e s t i m ony . The Di s tr i c t

Court de ni e d the m ot i on, but

i nc l ude d the fol l owi ng i ns tr uc t i on in the jury

char ge: You wi l l r e c a l l tha t

Age nt Pe r z i c hi l l i r e a d the Mi l l hous e wr i tt e n s t a t e m e nt dur i ng hi s t e s t i m ony . I f Age nt Pe r z i c hi l l i ’ s r e a di ng i s di ffe r e nt fr om the t e xt of the wr i tt e n s t a t e m e nt

tha t ha s be e n a dm i tt e d i nt o e vi de nc e and wh ic h y ou will re ce ive, I i nstr uct you to disr egar d A gent Perz ic hill i’ s de vi a t i on. The wr i tt e n c opy i s the e vi de nc e tha t

y ou wi l l have r e gar di ng th e statem en t. (A p p . at 3 7 9 .) Af te r a five-day tr ia l, the jury

conv ic te d M il lhou se on al l c ou nts, and h e was late r s e nt e nc e d t o 894 m onths i n pr i s on and afi ve - y e ar t e rm of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . He now ap p eals. II. A . T estim o n y o f

D N A E x p ert L ev in M illh o u se arg u es th at L ev in ’s testim o n y as to D N A p o p u latio n f

req u en cy sh o u ld have be e n e xc l ude d both be c aus e i t wa s not i nc l ude d i n the gove rnm e nt ’ s Rul e 16 di s c l os ur e s and be c aus e i t wa s not r e l i abl e wi thi n the m e ani ng of Fe de r a l Rul e of Ev idence 70 2. We re view the Dis tr ic t Cou rt ’s deci si on fo r a bu se of disc re ti on . Unite d S tates v . F o rd , 4 8 1 F .3 d2 1 5 , 2 1 7 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 7 ).-6-

1. Fe de r alRul e of Cr i m i nalPr oc e dur e 16 It is u n d isp u tedth at th e g o v ern m en t’s Ru le 1 6 d isclo su re as to D N A ex p ert L ev in c ont a i ne d no m e nt i on of popul a t i on fr e que nc y or popul a t i on s t a t i s t i c s . As s um i ng, wi thout de c i di ng, tha t

thi s c ons t i t

ut e d avi ol a t i on of the gove rnm e nt ’ s Rul e 16 o b lig atio n s, th e D istrict C o u rt d idn o t ab u se its d iscretio n w h en it allo w edL ev in to t e s t i fy de s pi t e the vi ol a t i on. Rul e 16( a ) ( 1) ( G) r e qui r e s the gove rnm e nt t o pr oduc e awr i tt e n s umm ary of any e xpe rt t e s t i m ony

i t s e e ks t o offe r

a t tr i a l . I f aparty

fa i l s t o c om

pl y wi th thi s Rul e , the c o u rt m ay: (A) order t

hat party to perm it the dis covery

or inspec ti on ; s peci fy

it s t im e, p lace, an dm an n er; an dp rescrib e o th er j u st term s an dco n d itio n s; (B) grant a c on ti nu ance ; ( C) pr ohi bi t

tha t party fr om i ntr oduc i ng the undi s c l os e d e vi de nc e ; or (D ) en ter an y

o th er o rd er th at is j u st u n d er th e circu m stan ces. Fed. R. Crim . P. 16(d)(2). W e have he l d tha t

ane w tr i a l i s warr ant e d ba s e d on the gove rnm e nt ’ s vi ol a t i on of Rul e 16 onl y

whe n the de fe ndant

ha s de m ons tr a t e d tha t

the di s tr i c t

c ourt ’ s a c t i ons resu ltedin p rej u d ice to h im . U n itedS tates v . L o p ez, 2 7 1 F .3 d4 7 2 , 4 8 4 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 1 ). Th e defendant m

ust s ho w “a l ikel ihoo d that the verdic t wou ld have been diff er ent had the gove rnm e nt

c om pl i e d wi th the di s c ove ry

r ul e s . ” Uni t e d St a t e s v. Davi s , 397 F. 3d 17 3, 17 8 (3d Cir. 20 05 ) ( inte rnal ci tati on and q uo tati on om itte d). A lth o u g hit m ay

n o t alw ay s su f

f ice, in th is case th e D istrict C o u rt ad equ atelyT h u s, w e re jec t M ill h o u se ’s a rg u m e n t th a t alth o u g h th e D N A e v id e n c e w a s o n ly 1 dir ect l y rel evan t t o the M ay 1 robb eri es, t he p rej ud i ci al effect i nfec t ed all of the cou nts . -7- r e s ol ve d the par

t i e s ’ di s put e by

pe rm i tt i ng voi r

di r e of Le vi n out s i de of the pr e s e nc e of the jury and gi vi ng the de fe ns e t i m e i n whi c h t o pr e par e for c r os s - e xam i na t i on. I nde e d, the de fe ns e we nt

on t o c onduc t

as e ar c hi ng and e xt e ns i ve c r os s - e xam i na t i on, e l i c i t i ng te st im on y from Levin regarding the potentia l und er -r epre se ntat ion o f A fric an-Am er ic an m a l e s i n the Pe nns yl vani aSt a t e Pol i c e da t aba s e a s c om par e d wi th the a c t

ua l popul a t i on i n Phi l a de l phi a , the pot e nt i a l for c ont am i na t i on of the s am pl e , and Le vi n’ s c a l c ul a t i on m eth o d s, w h ich w ere d o n e u sin g th e P o p S tats co m p u ter p ro g ram

rath er th an b y

h an d . Th e defense a ls o eli ci te d f rom Levin an adm is si on that , a lt ho ug h M il lhou se ’s DN A w as a“ c om pl e t e m a t c h, ” the DNA c oul d “ m a t c h othe r s c om pl e t e l y ” a s we l l . ( App. a t 277, 29 4.) I n any

e ve nt , Mi l l hous e ha s not de m ons tr a t e d tha t

he wa s pr e

judi c e d by

any pur port e d Rul e 16 vi ol a t i on. Mos t i m port ant l y , he doe s not

c ont e s t Le vi n’ s t e s t i m ony tha t hi s DNA wa s ac om

pl e t e m a t c h wi th the DNA r e c ove r e d fr om the s c e ne , and the e vi de nc e of Mi l l hous e ’ s gui l t a s t o e a c h of the May

1 r obbe r i e s wa s ove rwhe l m i ng. 1 2. Fe de r alRul e of Evi de nc e 702 Rul e 702 pr ovi de s tha t

an e xpe rt m ay offe r opi ni on t e s t i m ony

pr ovi de d tha t

the t e s t i m ony i s ( 1) ba s e d on s uffi c i e nt fa c t s or da t a , ( 2) the pr oduc t

of r e l i abl e pr i nc i pl e s and m eth o d s, an d(3 ) th e w itn ess h as ap p liedth e p rin cip les an dm eth o d s reliab ly to th e f acts-8-

o f th e case. T h e D istrict C o u rt serv es as a “g atek eep er” f o r th e ad m issib ility

o f scien tif ic testim o n y , ev alu atin g , as a p relim in ary m atter, w h eth er th e ex p ert’s m eth o d o lo g y is scien tif ically v alidan dcan b e p ro p erly ap p liedto th e f

acts at issu e. D aub ert v . M errell D o w P h arm s., In c., 5 0 9 U .S . 5 7 9 , 5 9 2 (1 9 9 3 ); F o rd , 4 8 1 F .3 dat 2 1 9 -2 0 . We h av e h eld th at th e reliab ility

an aly sis is “lo w er th an th e m erits stan d ardo f co rrectn ess” an dis fl e xi bl e i n na t

ur e . Pi ne dav. For d Mot or Co. , 520 F. 3d 237, 247- 48 ( 3d Ci r . 2008) (in tern al qu o tatio n o m itted ); In re P ao li R . R . Y ard P C B L it ig., 3 5 F . 3 d 7 1 7 , 7 4 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) (ou tl ining sev era l fac tors to b e c o n side red ). M illh o u se arg u es th at L ev in ’s testim o n y reg ard in g th e p ro cess h e u sedin ana l y z i ng the DNA de m ons tr a t e s i t s unr e l i abi l i ty , part i c ul ar l y be c aus e the Afr i c anA m erican p o p u latio n o f

P h ilad elp h ia w as u n d er-rep resen tedin th e P en n sylv an ia S tate Pol i c e da t aba s e and, ha d i t be e n pr ope r l y

r e pr e s e nt e d, the l i ke l i hood of m or e pe r s ons havi ng the s am e DN A a s Mi l l ho us e wo ul d i nc r e a s e . Ea c h o f h i s c on c e rns a s t o the DN A e vi de nc e , howe ve r , goe s t o the we i ght and not the a dm i s s i bi l i ty

of the e vi de nc e . The Distri ct Co urt did no t a

bu se it s dis cr et ion in f

inding that

Levin’s e xp ert t es ti m on y was a dm i s s i bl e unde r

Rul e 702. B. De ni alof Mot i on for Mi s t r i al Mill ho use argues that the Distri ct Co urt e rr ed wh en it

denied his m otion f

or a m i s tr i a l ba s e d on Age nt

Pe r z i c hi l l i ’ s r e fe r e nc e t o a“ dr ug” de bt . W e r e vi e w the de ni a l of am ot i on for

am i s tr i a l ba s e d on awi tne s s ’ s a l l e ge dl y pr e judi c i a l c omm e nt s for

abus e of-9-

di s c r e t i on . Un i t e d S t a t e s v. Lo r e , 43 0 F . 3d19 0, 20 7 ( 3dCi r . 20 05 ) . Sp e c i fi c a l l y , we e xam i ne ( 1) whe the r

the r e m arks we r e pr onounc e d and pe r s i s t e nt , c r e a t i ng al i ke l i hood tha t the y woul d m i s l e a d and pr e

judi c e the jury , ( 2) the s tr e ngth of the othe r e vi de nc e , and (3 ) cu rativ e actio n tak en b y th e D istrict C o u rt. Id . W e ne e d not

dwe l l on thi s i s s ue be c aus e the r e l e vant fa c t or s do not

be gi n t o we i gh in M illh o u se’s f

av o r. F irst, f

ar f ro m b ein g “p ro n o u n ced ” an d“p ersisten t,” M illh o u se co m p lain s o f o n e w o rdth at w as n o t rein f o rcedb y w h at th e j u ro rs saw o n th eir m o n ito rs; fu rther, the jurors wer e i nstr ucte d that the writte n f

orm was t o p re vail ov er

any oral read in g th at d if

f ered . S eco n d , ev en if

A g en t P erzich illi h adn o t u sedth e w o rd“d ru g ,” ev id en ce th at M illh o u se ad m ittedb ein g m o tiv atedb y a “d eb t” w o u ldn o n eth eless consti tute the e vidence of m otive he s ug gest s was la cking. An d, of course , the other ev id en ce ag ain st M illh o u se w as n o t m erely stro n g –it w as p o w erf

u l. III. W e wi l l a ffi rm

the judgm e nt

of c onvi c t i on.