2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-7-2007 

# U SA v . W i lli ams P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-4267

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . W i ll i am s " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 992. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/992NOT 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. 04- 4267 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. D A RR Y L W I LLI A M S, A ppel l ant A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 03- cr - 00700) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e M i chae l M . B ay l s on Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay10, 2007 B efor e: R E N D E L L , J O R D A N and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: J une 7, 2007 ) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJudge . D arr y l W i l l i ams w as convi ct ed bya j uryof tw o count s of bank r obberyi n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2113( a) . A ft eran i ni t i al m i s t r i al due t o a hung j ury , a new tr i al y i el ded a g u il tyv erd ict . W il li am s w as se n tenc ed to a term o f im p ri so n m en t of 1 0 8 m o n ths, 3 y ea rs2

s upervi s ed r el eas e, a $1, 000 fi ne, r es t i tut i on i n t he amountof $862, and a $200 s peci al a ss e ss m e n t. W ill iam s a p p e a ls h is c o n v ictio n . H e a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in admi t t i ng t he t es t i m onyof a “ r ever s e pr oj ect i on phot ogr amm etr y ” expe r tbeca us e the governm entfai l ed t o demonstr at e thatthe expe r t ’ s t echni que s at i s fi es anyof the admi s s i bi l i t ycr i t er i a s etfor t h i n D au bert v. Mer r el lD ow P har m aceut i cal s , I nc. , 50 9 U. S. 579 ( 1993) , orpos s es s es anyot heri ndi ci a of r el i abi l i t y . W e have j ur i s di ct i on over W i l l i a ms ’ a p p e a l p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d we wi l l a f f i r m. I. W il li am s w as c h arg ed w ith rob b ing tw o b an k s in Ju n e 2 0 0 3 . In th e f ir st r o b b ery on J une 6, a man ent er ed Sover ei gn B ank i n Fol s om , Penns y l vani a, demanded m oney fro m a tell er a n d ran o u t after rec eivin g $ 6 4 0 . T h is r o b b eryw as c ap tured o n the b an k ’s s ur vei l l ance camer a. I n t he s econd r obberyon J une 18, a man w ho, w i t nes s es s ay , bor e a r es embl ance t o t he Sover ei gn r obber , ent er ed a Ci t i zens B ank i n G l enol den, Penns y l vani a. T hi s m an demanded moneyfr om the t el l ers t at i on butgr abbed $422 f r om th e te lle r b e f

o re s h e c o u ld c o m p ly. T he p ri m aryi ssue att ri al w as the h ei gh tof the ban k robb er i n each of these ro b b e rie s. W itn e ss e s to th e ro b b e rie s te stif ied th a t th e ro b b e r w a s a n yw h e re f ro m 5 ' 2 " to 5' 7" t al l . W i l l i ams i s 6' t al l . T he governm ents oughtt o i ntr oduce the expe r tt es t i m onyof FB I agentPaul Sm i t h conce r ni ng t he hei ghtof the Sover ei gn B ank r obber . B as ed on the vi deo foot age f

r om t he s ur vei l l ance camer a, Sm i t h det erm i ned thatthe s us pectw as cl os er3

t o 5' 11" than 5' 2" byappl y i ng “r ever s e pr oj ect i on phot ogr amm etr y . ” Thi s m ethod i s on occa s i on empl oy ed byt he FB I t o det erm i ne the hei ghtof i ndi vi dual s depi ct ed on s u rv e illa n c e c a m e ra s lik e th e o n e th a t c a p tu re d im a g e s o f th e S o v e re ig n B a n k ro b b e r. Sm i t h t es t i fi ed thatt her e i s an err orr at e of a bout1" i n t hi s type of he i ghtanal y s i s . A ft er hol di ng a D a u b e rt hear i ng t o det erm i ne the admi s s i bi l i t yof thi s evi dence , the D i s t r i ct C o u rt d e te rm in e d th a t S m ith ’s te s tim o n yw a s a d m is s ib le . W i l l i ams cha l l enges t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s admi s s i on of Sm i t h’ s t es t i m ony c o n c e rn in g re v e rse p rojec tio n p h o to g ra m m e tryo n th e g ro u n d s th a t th e tec h n iq u e f a ils to s at i s fyanyof the fi ve D a u b e rt cr i t er i a foradmi s s i on of expe r tt es t i m ony . T he D i s t r i ct C our tfound undert he pr eponder ance s t andar d t hatSm i t h’ s t es t i m onym etthe r equi r ement s of Feder al R ul e of Evi dence 702. Speci fi cal l y , the C our tfound thatthe t es t i m onyw as bas ed on s uffi ci entfac t s ordat a as r ecount ed bythe expe r t , the t es t i m ony w a s a p ro d u c t o f

re liab le p rin c ip a ls a n d m e th o d s, th a t th e e x p e rt h a d a d e q u a te tra in in g in t he t echni que and thathe has r evi ew w i t hi n t he FB I , w hi ch, i n t he tr i al j udge’ s opi ni on, w as s uffi ci entundert he appl i cabl e t es t . A ddi t i onal l y , the D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatthe w itn e s s a p p lie d th e p ri n c ip a ls a n d m e th o d s re lia b ly to th e f a c ts o f th e c a s e . II. W e re v ie w th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e c is io n f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. V elas quez , 64 F. 3d 844, 847 ( 3d C i r . 1995) . A l t hough the Supr eme C our thas m ade c l ear th a t f e d e ra l trial ju d g e s, p u rsu a n t to F e d . R . E v id . 7 0 2 , h a v e a “ g a tek e e p in g ” o b lig a tio n to4

i ns ur e thatonl yr el i abl e and r el evantexpertt es t i m onybe pr es ent ed t o j ur or s , the tr i al j udge i s gr ant ed a c er t ai n degr ee of l at i tude t o det erm i ne w hetherthe D au bertfac t or s or anyot hers etof r eas onabl e r el i abi l i t ycr i t er i a ar e r eas onabl e meas ur es of r el i abi l i t yi n a p a rt ic u la r c a s e . D au bert , 509 U . S. at593. R ul e 702 s et s for t h r equi r ement s forthe admi s s i on of expe r tt es t i m ony : ( 1) the pr offe r ed w i t nes s m us tbe an e xper t ; ( 2) the expe r tm us tt es t i fyt o s ci ent i fi c, t echni cal or s p e c ia liz e d k n o w le d g e ; a n d (3 ) t h e e x p e rt ’s te s tim o n ym u s t a s s is t th e tr ie r o f f a c t. V elas quez , 6 4 F . 3 d at 84 8 . T h e o v erriding co n side rati o n w ith reg ard to the se th ree fa ctors is th a t e x p e rt te s tim o n ys h o u ld b e a d m itte d if it w ill a s s is t th e tr ie r o f f a c t. I d. a t 8 4 9 . T h e p arti es d o n o t dispu te th at S m ith ’s t esti m o n ysati sfies th e f ir st an d thir d r equi r ement s of R ul e 702. H er e, Sm i t h pr es ent ed evi dence thatthe FB I tr ai ned hi m i n t he r ever s e pr oj ect i on phot ogr amm etr yt echni que and thathe has empl oy ed the t echni que on n u m e ro u s p rio r o c c a sio n s. A d d iti o n a lly , itis c lea r th a t S m ith ’s te stim o n yis re lev a n t to t he pr i m aryi s s ue of he i ghti n t hi s cas e and thatadmi s s i on of hi s t es t i m onyw oul d ai d the tr ie r o f f a c t in m a k in g a d e te rm in a tio n o f h e ig h t. T he s econd r equi r ement , t hatthe expe r tt es t i fyt o s ci ent i fi c, t echni cal or s peci al i zed know l edge, i s ati s s ue her e. T he Supr eme C our tcl ar i fi ed i n D a u b e rt th a t th is req u ir em en t i s inten d ed to en su re the reli ab il ityo r trustw o rth ines s o f th e e x p ert’s te s tim o n y . See Velas quez , 64 F. 3d at849 ( ci t i ng D au bert , 5 0 9 U .S . a t 5 9 0 ). D au bert enumer at es a numberof fa ct or s t o be cons i der ed bya di s t r i ctcour ti n i t s as s es s m entof5

w hethert he t es t i m ony ’ s under l y i ng r eas oni ng orm ethodol ogyi s s ci ent i fi cal l yval i d and p ro p e rl yc a n b e a p p lie d to th e f a c ts a t is s u e . D au bert , 509 U . S. at590. T hes e fa ct or s ar e: ( 1) w hethera met hod cons i s t s of a t es t abl e hypot hes i s ; ( 2) w hetherthe met hod has been s ubj ectt o peerr evi ew ; ( 3) t he know n orpot ent i al r at e of e r r or ; ( 4) the exi s t ence and m a in ten a n c e o f

sta n d a rd s c o n tro lli n g th e tec h n iq u e ’s o p e ra tio n ; (5 ) w h e th e r th e m e th o d is gener al l yacc ept ed; ( 6) t he r el at i ons hi p of the t echni que t o m ethods w hi ch have been es t abl i s hed t o be r el i abl e; ( 7) t he qual i fi cat i ons of the expe r tw i t nes s t es t i fy i ng bas ed on th e m e th o d o lo g y ; a n d (8 ) t h e n o n -j u d ic ia l u s e s to w h ic h th e m e th o d h a s b e e n p u t. In re P aol i R . R . Y

ar d P C B Li t ig. , 35 F. 3d 717, 742 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . W i l l i ams ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n admi t t i ng Sm i t h’ s t es t i m ony b ec au se th e g o v ern m en t fail ed to p rof fe r ev iden ce d em o n str ati n g the re li ab il ityo f S m ith ’s r ever s e pr oj ect i on phot ogr amm et eryt echni que as i tw as us ed i n t hi s cas e, i ncl udi ng e v id e n c e th a t th e tec h n iq u e h a s b e e n p u b lish e d o r su b jec ted to p e e r re v iew , ev id e n c e a s to the tec h n iqu e’s e rror rate, evid en ce as to the s tand ard s co n tr o ll ing the tec h n iqu e’s oper at i on, orevi dence t hatt he t echni que, as us ed i n t hi s cas e, i s acc ept ed byany one out s i de of the FB I . W e di s agr ee. T he tr i al j udge i s gr ant ed a c ert ai n degr ee of l at i tude t o det erm i ne w hetherthe D au bertfac t or s oranyot hers etof r eas onabl e r el i abi l i t ycr i t er i a ar e appr opr i at e meas ur es o f re lia b ility in a p a rt ic u la r c a s e . D au bert , 509 U . S. at593. A l l of the D au bertfac t or s do n o t n e c e ss a rilya p p lyto e a c h c a se n o r a re th e se f a c to rs a c o m p re h e n siv e list o f a ll6

p o s s ib le m e a s u re s o f

re lia b ility. “ D au bert ’s l i s tof s peci fi c fa ct or s nei t hernece s s ar i l ynor excl us i vel yappl i es t o al l expert s ori n everycas e. ” Kum ho Ti r e C o. v. C ar m i chael , 526 U . S. 137, 141 ( 1999) . M or eover , dependi ng on t he fa ct s of ea ch part i cul arcas e, the fa ctors d o n o t hav e to b e w eigh ed eq u all y . T h e f ac tors m ere lyg u ide th e jud g e’s det erm i nat i on of the admi s s i bi l i t yof evi dence , a det erm i nat i on t o w hi ch w e af for d gr eat defe r ence . U n d e r th e lib e ra l D au berts t andar d, the pl ai nt i ffs do nothave t o pr ove t o t he j udge b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e th a t th e ir e x p e rt’s te stim o n yis c o rre c t, th e ym u st o n ly s how t hati ti s r el i abl e. T he r equi r ementof r el i abi l i t yi s l ow erthan the s t andar d of corr ect ness. A j ud ge can fi nd an ex pertop i nion rel i able i f i ti s based o n “g oo d g round s” orm ethods and pr ocedur es of s ci ence r atherthan on s ubj ect i ve bel i ef oruns uppor t ed s p e c u la tio n . D au bert , 50 9 U . S . at59 0. T he judge do es not have to det erm i ne thatthese m ethods ar e nec es s ar i l yt he bes tgr ounds t o as cert ai n cert ai n fac t s , butonl ythatthe e v id e n c e p re s e n te d w ill h e lp th e tr ie r o f f a c t. A d d iti o n a lly , the re liab ili tyf a c to r is n o t a s trict re q u ire m e n t th a t sh o u ld b e u se d to excl ude al l ques t i onabl yr el i abl e evi dence . “The r el i abi l i t yof evi dence goes ‘ m or e t o the w ei ghtt han t o t he admi s s i bi l i t yof the evi dence . ’ ” V elas quez , 64 F. 3d at849 ( ci t i ng U n itedS ta tes v . Ja ko b e tz , 955 F. 2d 786, 800 ( 2d C i r . 1992) ) . I n or dert o be admi s s i bl e, e v id e n c e n e e d o n ly b e s u f f ic ie n tly re lia b le to h e lp th e tr ie r o f f a c t. I n r e Pa o l i R. R. , 35 F. 3d at744.7

H ere, t he g ov ernm ent pr off ered a detai l ed ex planat i on of the t echn i qu e of reverse pr oj ect i on phot ogr amm et ery . Sm i t h t es t i fi ed aboutthe met hodol ogyus ed i n t he t echni que and de t ai l ed how t he met hods w er e appl i ed i n t hi s cas e. H e al s o t es t i fi ed that h e h a s p u b l i s h e d a r t i c l e s a b o u tt h e t e c h n i q u e a n d th a ti ti s e m p l o ye d b y th e F B I a n d b y a few otherl aw enfo rcem ent agencies . W e conc l ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n det erm i ni ng, b a se d o n th is e v id e n c e , tha t th e re v e rse p rojec tio n p h o to g ra m m e trytec h n iq u e is su ff ici en tl yreli ab le t o sati sfythe a d m issi o n req u ir em en ts of R u le 70 2 . B ec au se S m ith ’s evi dence s poke t o t he par amount conce r n i n t he ca s e – the hei ghtof the r obber– and beca us e the D i s t r i ctC our tfound Sm i t h’ s t echni que t o be s uffi ci ent l yr el i abl e, the D i s tr i ct C o u r td i d n o ta b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n a d m i t t i n g S m i t h ’ s t e s t i m o n y. O n c e t h e f

o u n d a t i o n f

o ra d m i s s i b i l i t y r e q u i r e d b y D au berthas been e s t abl i s hed, conce r ns aboutt he val i di t yof an e xper t ’ s concl us i ons s houl d notr es ul ti n t he exc l us i on of t he expe r t ’ s t es t i m ony . R ather , s uch conc erns s houl d be pr es ent ed t o the j urythr ough cr os s exami nat i on, pr es ent at i on of contr aryevi dence and ca r eful i ns t ruct i on on t he bur den o f p ro o f. R ock v . A rkans as , 4 8 3 U .S . 4 4 , 6 1 (1 9 8 7 ). III . Fort he r eas ons s etfor t h above, w e w i l l aff i r m W i l l i ams’ convi ct i on.