FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT MAR 15, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 14088 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D
. C
. D ocketN o. 04 -000 30 -C R -002 -C D L -4 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f
- A p p e lle e , v ersu s H E R M A N D A N N Y D E A N , J R ., D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ar c h 15, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: H e r m a n D a n n y D e a n , J r ., a p p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n s f o ra r m e d b a n k r o b b e r y , in vi ol a t i on of

18 U
. S
. C
. § 2113( a ) , ( d) , a nd u si n g a fi r e a r m dur i ng a c r i m e of vi ol e nc e , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U
. S
. C
. § 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) , ( c ) ( 4)
. F orthe f i r s tt i m e , onFor this first tim e, in this direct appe al, Dea n also asser

ts various claims of inef

fec tive 1 a ssi stan c eo f

tri a lc o un s e l
. W ew i l ln o ta d dr e s s th e s ei s s u e s a s th er e c o rd i s n o ts u f

fi c ie ntl y develope d for our

review. See United St at es v. Bender, 290 F .3d 1279, 1284 (11th Cir. 2002) (holdingthat we will n o tg enerally consider c laims of ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel raise d on direc t appeal where the district court did not enter tain the claim nor develop a f actual rec ord); see a lso Ma ssa

ro v. Un ite d St ate s, 53 8 U .S. 50 0, 50 4- 05 (2 00 3) (n oting that an appe llatec ourt g e nerally cannot adequate ly

decidean inef

fec tive-assistance -of- counsel c laim raised f or the fir s t t i m e on appeal beca

use the focus at trial was not on whether defense counsel’s actions were prejudicial or s u p p o rte d b y r e a s o n a b les trate gy

)
. T h ep r e f

e ra b leme an s f

o r d e c idinga

c laim o f in e ffe ctive a ssi sta nc eof c ouns e l is throu gh a

28 U. S.C. § 22 55 motion , “ e ven if there c ord c ontains so me indication of def

iciencie s in counsel’s performanc e.” Ma ssaro, 538 U.S. at 504-05. Although D ean fi le d a § 2 25 5 mo tio n a sserting , amon g oth e r thing s, that his co un se l faile d to f ilea no tic eof a pp e a l, the ineff ective- assistanceclaims that Dea n now raises on direc t a

ppeal were never

addre ssed by

the district court and therec ord is not otherwise de veloped on the c laims. 2 a p p e a l, D e a n a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d b y a llo w in g D r . C in d y P a r k e r , a bo ar d- c e r t i f

i e d e me r ge nc y r oo m p hy s i c i a n w ho the go ve r nme nt di d no t of f e r a s an
e x p e r t w itn e s s , to te s tif y a s a n e x p e r t w i t n e s s . M o r e s p e c if ic a lly , a c c o r d in g to 1 D e a n, D r . P a r ke rw a s pe r m i t t e d t o gi ve opi ni ons be y ond the r e a s ona bl e l i m i t s of h er ex p er ti se , an d to o p in e th at d u rin g h er trea tm en t o f h im , D ea n ’s co n d u ct w as “a l i t t l e b i tb i z a r r e . ” A f

t e rc a r e f u l r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. N or m a l l y , w e w oul d r e vi e w a di s tr i c t c our t ’ s e vi de nt i a r y rul i ngs f orab u se of di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T u rn er, 474 F
. 3d 1265 ( 11th C i r . 2007)
. A n e r r one ous
ev i d en t i ary ru l i n g d o es n o treq u i re rev ersal i f th e r e s u l t i n g erro r w as h arm l ess,
m ea n ing t hat“ there i s are as on abl e l i kel i ho od that[i t ] af fe ct ed the defendan t’ s
s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H a nds , 184 F
. 3d 1 3 2 2 , 1329 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( in te r n a l c ita tio n s a n d q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o m itte d ) . H o w e v e r , w h e r e , a s h e r e , a de f e nda ntdoe s notpr e s e r ve hi s c ha l l e nge t o a n e vi de nt i a r y rul i ng by3

c o n te m p o ran eo u sl y o b

j ect i n g , o u r rev i ew i s o n l y fo r p l ai n erro r. Id
. U n d er p l a in
e r r orr e vi e w , the defendantbe a r s the bur de n t o s how tha tthe r e i s “ ( 1) e r r or , ( 2) th a t is p la in , a n d ( 3 ) th a t a f f e c ts s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . I f a ll th r e e c o n d itio n s a r e m e t,
a n a ppe l l a t e cour tm a y the n e xe r c i s e i t s di s c r e t i on t o not i c e a f or f e i t e d e r r or , but onl y i f ( 4) the e r r ors e r i ous l y a f f e c t s the f

a i r ne s s , i nt e gr i ty , orpubl i c r e put a t i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. M o n roe, 35 3 F
. 3d 13 46 , 13 49 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( in te r n a l q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d )
. T he part i es ar e f

am i l i arw i th t he relev an t f ac t s a nd w e onl y s um m ar i ze them here
. O n Jun e 23, 20 04 , D ea n and a c o-defendant , M i chae l E dw ar d B aile y, w er e i ndi c t e d fo r a r m e d ba nk r obbe r y , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U
. S
. C
. § 2113( a ) , ( d) ( C ount O n e ) , a n d u s in g a f

ir e a r m d u r i n g a c r im e o f v io le n c e , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) , ( c ) ( 4) ( C ountT w o) , a r i s i ng outof the i ri nvol ve m e nti n the
ro b b er y o f an A T M i n t he bank w here D ea n w orked. B ai l ey ent er ed a gui l ty pl ea
a nd t e s t i f

i e d at D ean ’ s s ubs e que ntj ur y tr i a l
. I n a ddi t i on t o B a i l e y ’ s t e s t i m ony
a bou t h i s p l a n n i n g o f th e r o b b e r y w i th D e a n , th e g o v e r n me n t a l s o p r e s e nt e d t he t es ti m on y of s om e of l aw enforce m entand D ea n’ s c o-w orkers , as w el l as D r. Ci n d y Pa r k e rwh o tr e a t e d De a n u p o n h i s a r r i v a l a t t he ho s pi t a l a f t e rth e ATM
r o b b e r y .4

D r. P arker i s a n em er gency r oo m ph ys i ci an w ho speciali ze s i n em er gency
m e d ic in e . S h e h a d b e e n a p h y s ic ia n s in c e 1 9 9 4 , a n d b e f o r e t h e n , w a s a p a r a m e d ic fr om 19 78 t o 1 99 0. D uri ng hi s treat m entby D r. P arker, D ea n cl ai m ed thathe had b een stru ck o n th e b ack o f h i s h ead w i th th e b u t to f a g u n d u ri n g th e A T M ro b b ery. A f te r lo o k in g atD ean ’ s h ead t o see i f h e h ad an y l acerati o n s, ab rasi o n s, o r b ru i ses, D r. P arker fo u n d n o abn orm al i t i es . D r. P arker s t at ed thather obser vat i on s w er e i ncon si st ent w it h D ea n’ s c l ai m thathe had b ee n struck w i th t he bu t tof a gun
. D r. P a r k e rd e s c r ib e d D e a n a s te a r f u l a n d n o t to ta lly f

o r th c o m in g w ith a n s w e r s to que s t i ons , a nd s a i d tha ts he f ound thi s be ha vi ort o be “ a l i t t l e bi tbi z a r r e , ” s o s he de c i de d t o p erfor m a C A T s c a n on hi s he a d. B e f or e c onduc t i ng the C A T s c a n, s he f e l tthe r i ghtoc c i pi t a l a r e a of D e a n’ s hea d, w he r e he i ndi c a t e d he ha d be e n s truc k,
a nd not i c e d tha tthe r e w a s no s w e l l i ng t h ere. T he C A T s c a n w a s nor m a l a nd
re veal ed no abno rm al i t i es t o D ea n’ s s ku l l
. D r. P arker had p re p ar ed a m edi ca l
r e por tof

he rtr e a tm e ntof

D e a n a nd r e vi e w e d tha tr e por tpr i ort o t e s t i f y i ng. A c c o r d i n g t o th e r e p o r t , th e r e w a s n o e v i d e n c e o f e d e ma ( s w e l l i n g ) o rhe ma t o ma ( s w e llin g th a t is c a u s e d b y b le e d in g u n d e r n e a th th e s k in )
. D r. P arker i nd i ca t ed thatpri or t o h ertre atm ento f D ea n , she had t re at ed
a p p r o x im a te ly 2 0 p a t i e n t s w h o h a d c o m p la in e d o f in ju r ie s c a u s e d b y b e in g h it in th e h ea d b y a p i st ol
. N orm al l y, such pat i ent s have a l otof sw el l i ng , and som et i m esR

u l e 7 0 2 p ro v i d es th e f

o l l o wi n g: 2 I f s c ie nti fi c , t echn ica l, o r o ther spe c ialize d k no wl e dg ewi ll a ssi st thetrie r o f f a c t to understand theevidenc e or to deter mine a fact i n issue, a witness qualifie d as an e xpert by knowledg e, skill, experience, training , or educ ation, may t es t i fy th ereto in the form of a n opinion or otherwise, if ( 1) the testimony is based upon suf

fi ci en t facts or data, ( 2) the testimony is theproduct of reliable principles and methods, and ( 3) the witness ha s applied the principles a

nd methods reliably

to the fac ts of the ca se. Fe d. R. Evid. 702.
5 a c ut . N ot a bl y , a tno poi ntdi d D ea n obj e c tt o D r . P a r ke r ’ s t e s t i m ony orr e que s tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t to e v a lu a te h e rq u a lif ic a tio n s . F or t he f i r s tt i me , D e a n n o w c l a i ms th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u r te r r e d b y a l l o w i ng D r . P a r ke r ’ s t e s t i m ony , w hi c h D e a n c ont e nds w a s e xpe r tt e s t i m o n y su bj e c tt o the “g a te k e e p in g ” r e q u ir e m e n ts o f R u le 7 0 2 o f

th e F e d e r a l R u le s o f E v i d e n c e . “R u le 2 702 c om pe l s the di s tr i c tc our tt o p erfo r m the c r i t i c a l ‘ ga t e ke e pi ng’ f unc t i on
c onc e r ni ng the a dm i s s i bi l i ty of ” e xpe rt evi de nc e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F r a z i e r , 387 F
. 3d 1244, 1260 ( 11th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( e n ba nc ) ( c i t a t i ons om i t t e d)
. “ T hi s f unc t i on i nhe r e nt l y r e qui r e s the tr i a l c our tt o c onduc ta n ex act i ng a na l y s i s of the f o u n d a tio n s o f

e x p e r t o p in io n s to e n s u r e th e y m e e t th e s ta n d a r d s o f a d m is s ib i lity
u n d e r R u le 7 0 2 .” I d . ( in te r n a l q u o ta tio n , a lte r a tio n , a n d e m p h a s is o m itte d ) . T h is obj e c t i v e i s t o e n s u r e th e r e l i a b i l i ty a n d r e l e v a n c e o f th e e x p e r t t e s t i mo n y . I d. (quo t i ng K um ho T i re C o. , L t d. v. C arm i chae l , 52 6 U
. S
. 13 7, 15 2 (19 99 ))
.3 Rule 403, in turn, p e rm its a dis tric t c ourt

to e xclu dere le va

nt evid e nc eon ly

wh e n “ its probative value is substantially outweighed by

th e d an ger o f unfair prejudice , confusion of the iss ue s, or mis le a din gthejur

y , o r b y c on sid e ratio ns of

un du ede lay , wa st e of ti me, or ne e dle ss presentation of cumulative e viden ce.”We consider “ Rule 403 . . . an extraordinar y reme dy that should be used s p ar i n gl y beca use it allows the cour

t to ex clude admittedly

probative evidence .” Ros s, 33 F .3 d at 152 4. Thus , a trial cou rt ’s dis c retio n to e xclu dee vide nc ea s und uly pre judic ial is “nar rowly circumscribe[d].” United States v. Cross, 928 F.2d 1030, 1048 (11th Cir. 1991) (c itation omitted). “The ‘ major func tion’ of Rule 403 ‘is limit ed to e x cluding matter of sc ant or cumulative probative f

orce , drag g ed in by

the heels for

the sakeof its prejudicial e ffe ct.’”I d. (citation omitted). 6 In d et erm i n i n g th e ad m i ssi b i l i ty o f ex p ertt est i m o n y , d is tr i ctco u rt s m u st
c ons i de rw he the r( 1) the e xpe r ti s qua l i fi ed t o t e s t i f y c om pe t e nt l y r e ga r di ng the
m att er s s he i nt ends t o add re ss ; (2) the m etho do l og y by w hi ch the expertre ac hes her c on cl usi on s i s s uffi ci ent l y r el i abl e a s det erm i ned b y the sortof i nq ui ry
m a nda t e d by D a ube r t ; a nd ( 3) the t est i m ony a s s i s t s the tr i e rof f a c t , thr ough the
a ppl i c a t i on of

s c i e nt i f i c , t e c hni c a l , ors pe c i a l i z e d e xpe rt i se, t o unde r s t a nd the
e v id e n c e o rt o d e te r m in e a f a c t in is s u e . I d . “T h e s a m e c r ite r ia th a t a r e u s e d to
a s s e s s th e r e lia b ility o f a s c ie n tif

ic o p in io n m a y b e u s e d to e v a lu a te th e r e lia b ility of no n-sc i ent i fi c, experi ence -bas ed t es t i m on y. ” I d. at 1 2 6 2 (quo t i ng K um ho T i re , 52 6 U
. S
. at15 2). 3 I ti s undi s put e d tha tD e a n f a i l e d t o o bj ect e i the rt o D r . P a r ke r ’ s t e s t i m ony
ort o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f a i l ur e t o qua l i f

y he ra s a n e xpe r t . I n F r a z i e r , the d e f e n d a n t m a d e a s im ila rc la im , a r g u in g th a t t h e d i s tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d b y f a ilin g to
c o n d u c ta s u a s p o n t e d e t e r mi n a t i o n o f th e e x p e r tq u a l i f

i c a t i ons of

tw o FBI i nv es t i gat ors. S ee 38 7 F .3 d at 12 68 n. 21
. A pp l yi ng pl ai n err or re vi ew , w e w er e7

u n p e r s u ad ed th at “ th e d i stri ct co u rt , w h en faced w i th n o o b j ect i o n , w as o b l i g ed to for m a l l y m e m or i a l i z e i t s de t e r m i na t i ons r e ga r di ng qua l i f i c a t i ons a nd r e l i a bi l i ty on th e r e c o r d .” I d . ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) . W e d is c e r n e d n o e r r o r , le t a lo n e p la in
e r r or , w he r e the i nve s t i ga t or s “ de m ons tr a t e d e xpe r tqua l i f i c a t i o n s be f

or e of f e r i ng
a n y o p in io n s , a n d p r o v id e d s p e c if ic a n d d e ta ile d q u a n tita tiv e b a s e s f o rt h e ir
o p in io n s [ .]” I d
. H er e, l i ke i n F ra zi er , the defend an thas notca rr i ed hi s burden t o sho w error, l etal on e pl ai n err o r, re sul t i ng fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s f ai l ure t o eng age i n a form al det erm i nat i on of D r. P arker’ s qual i fi ca t i on s. A re vi ew of her t es t i m on y m akes cl ea r thatshe dem on stra t ed expertqu al i fi ca t i o n s i n t he fi el d o f e m er gency
m e di c i ne - - s he h ad be e n a n e m e r ge nc y r oom phy s i c i a n s i nc e 1994, w a s boa r dc e r t i f i e d i n e me r g e n c y me d i c i n e , h a d b e e n a p a r a me d i c b e f o r e b e c o mi n g a p h y s ic ia n , a n d h a d e x a m in e d a p p r o x im a te ly 2 0 p a tie n ts c o m p la in in g o f b e in g h it in th e h e a d wi th ap i s t o l - - a n d p r o v i d e d a d e t a i l e d e x p l a n a t i o n , b a s e d o n h e ro wn pers on al ob se rvat i on and exam in at i on of D ea n, for herop i ni on . D r. P arker
re vi e w e d he row n m e di c a l r e por tde t a i l i ng he rtr e a tm e ntof D e a n be f

or e t e s t i f y i ng,
an d d i d n o trel y u p o n an y ex tra-reco rd ev i d en ce i n p r e s e n tin g h er t est i m o n y. M or e ove r , D r . P ark er’ s t es t i m ony tha t( 1) the r e w a s no e vi de nc e of e de m a or he m a t om a , a nd ( 2) D e a n’ s c l a i m of be i ng hi tby the but tof a gun w a s i nc ons i s t e nt8

w i t h he row n m e di c a l e xa m i na t i on of D e a n’ s he a d, w a s ba s e d on he row n ob se rvat i on s a nd w as no tbeyond any r ea sonabl e l i m i t s of h er ex p er t i se as an
e m e r g e n c y r o o m p h y s ic ia n . A s fo r D ea n ’s ch allen g e t o D r. P ar k er ’s d es cr ip ti o n o f h is b eh av io r as “a l i t t l e bi tbi za rr e, ” thi s c l ai m is w it h ou tm er i t . D r. P arker i nd i ca t ed thatdu ri ng her
exam i nat i on of D ea n, he w as t ea rf ul , and w as no tt ot al l y fo rthcom i ng w i th answ er s t o que s t i o n s , w h i c h p r o mp t e d h e rt o c o n d u c ta CA T s c a n . D r . Pa r k e r ’ s t e s t i m ony thatD ea n’ s behavi or w as “ b izar re” ca m e i n t he cont extof her deci si on t o p er form a C A T sc an. E ven i f the adm i ss i on of thi s t es t i m on y c on stitut ed error thatw as pl ai n, D ea n cou l d n otca rry h is b u rden on the thi rd pron g o f the pl ai n err or t es t-- an ef fe cton hi s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s - - gi v en th atse vera l ot her gov ernm entw i tness es t es ti fi ed t o t he fa ctthatD ea n w as no tac t i ng no rm al l y a nd thatD ea n’ s hea d ap p eared n o rm al aft er th e ro b b ery. B as ed on the foregoi ng , w e di sc ern n o p l ai n err or in the a dm i ss i on of D r. P ark er’ s t est i m o n y an d acco rd i n g l y affi rm D ean ’ s co n v i ct i o n s. AF F I RME D.