# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 37 50

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Dari us Devo n Ni ck el ou s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - W at erl oo

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 15 , 20 18
Fi le d: Feb ru ary 26 , 20 19

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BENTON, BEAM, an d ERI CKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Dari us D. Nick el ou s w a s c o n vi ct ed of un la wfu ll y po ss es si ng a fir earm in

vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ), 92 2( g) (3 ), 92 2( g) (9 ), an d 92 4( a)(2 ). The di st ric tc o u r t s e nt en ced hi m to 12 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. He ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti on

. 1

Hav in g ju ris di ct io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 , th is co ur t af fir m s.

I.

Nick el ou s was co nv ic te d of un la wfu ll y po ss es si ng a fir earm aft er a sh oo ti ng

at a frat ern it y pa rty. He cl ai m s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of ac qu it ta l b ecau se th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t. Thi s co ur t revi ews de

no vo th e “ de ni al of a mo t i o n fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al .” Unit ed St at es v. Ro be rt

s , 88 1 F.3 d, 10 49

, 10 52 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ). The ev id en c e i s vi ewed “ in th e li gh t m os t

fav or ab le to th e jury ve rd ic t an d gi vi ng th e ve rd ic t th e be ne fit of a ll reas on ab le

in fere nc es .” Unit

ed St at es v. Ca st eel

, 66 3 F.3 d 10 13

, 10 19 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Rev ers al

is ap p ro pr ia te “ on ly if no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d th e de fen da nt gu il ty

be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Id

.

Nick el ou s st ip ul at ed to al l el em en ts of co nv ic ti on ex cep t po ss es si on of a

fir earm

. Se e Unit

ed St at es v. And er so n , 78 F.3 d 42 0, 42 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (to co nv ic t

“ un de r 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ), th e go ve rn m en t ha d to sh ow be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t

th at (1 ) he ha d be en co nv ic te d of a fel on y ; (2 ) he th erea fte r po ss es se d a fir earm ; an d
(3 ) th e fir earm ha d tra ve le d in or affe ct ed in te rs ta te c o mm e r c e ”). The go ve rn m en t

pr od uc ed as ev id en ce of po ss es si on : (1 ) Nick el ou s ad m it te d at t e n d i n g a frat ern it y

pa rty an d ha vi ng an al te rcat io n th ere; (2 ) hi s fo rm er cl as sm at e t e s ti fie d sh e he ard a

gu ns ho t at th e pa rty a n d t he n sa w Nick el ou s, weari ng a red swe at sh irt

, wav in g a
si lv er rev ol ve r; (3 ) two ot he r pe op le at th e pa rty—on e a se cu rit y gu ard an d th e ot he r

a m em be r of th e Arm

y N a t io na l Gua rd

—t es ti fie d th e sh oo te r was weari ng a red

swe at sh irt ; (4) a po li ce of fic er tes ti fie d th at m

ul ti pl e pa rtygo ers rep or te d a sh oo ti ng by a m an weari ng a red swe at sh irt ; (5 ) an ot he r of fic er, who fo un d Nick el ou s 20 0 feet

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Nor th ern 1

Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-2

-fro m th e pa rty (wear in g a red swe at sh irt ), te st ifi ed th at he sa w Nick el ou s dr op a m et al

ob ject n ex t t o a pi ck up tru ck ; (6 ) th e o ffi cer t es ti fie d t ha t Nick el ou s re fu se d t o s to p
whe n or de red ; (7 ) th e of fic er fo u nd a si lv er rev ol ve r in th e sp ot whe re Nick el ou s
dr op pe d th e ob

ject; an d (8 ) whe n of

fic ers ap pr eh en de d Nick el ou s, hi s ha nd was
bl eed in g, an d h e sa id he ha d “ go tt en hi s as s k ic ke d a t t he pa rty.”

Nick el ou s qu es tions his cl as sm at e’ s cred ib il it y , arg ui ng he r te st im on y is bi as ed

an d ba se d on “ as su m

pt io ns an d pr ejud ic es .” Howev er, “ [t]hi s cou rt do es no t weig h

th e cred ib il it y of th e wit ne ss es or th e ev id en ce. The jury ha s th e so le res po ns ib il it y

to res ol ve co nf

li ct s or co nt rad ic ti on s in te st im on y , an d cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns are

res ol ve d in fav or of th e ve rd ic t.” Unit ed St at es v. Al dr id ge , 66 4 F.3 d 70 5, 71 5 (8 th

Ci r. 20 11 ) (i nt ern al cit at io n o m it te d)

.

Nick el ou s al so ch al le ng es th e co nv ic ti on be cau se th ere was no ph y si cal

ev id en ce. Bu t “ th ere is su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t a co n v i ct io n fo r fel on in

po ss es si on whe re a gu n was im m ed ia te ly reco ve red fro m th e lo cat io n whe re th e

de fen da nt was ob se rv ed dr op pi ng so m et hi ng .” Unit ed St at es v. Je ffer so n , 20 6 Fed

. App x. 65 4

, 6 5 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Se e Unit ed St at es v. Ba il ey , 83 1 F.3 d 10 35

, 10 39
(8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (h ol di ng ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t whe re a fir earm was reco ve red

“ al on g the ro ute” of de fen da nt ’s fli gh t wit hi n 45 m in ut es of hi s ap pr eh en si on ); Unit ed

St at es v. Li g h t

, 4 0 6 F.3 d 99 5, 99 7- 98 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (h ol di ng ev id en ce was

su ffi ci en t whe re po li ce “ reco ve red a gu n fro m t h e a ll ey ” whe re de fen da nt was

ap pr eh en de d eve n th ou gh no on e sa w hi m dr op it or “ ke pt an ey e on th e sp ot whe re

th e g un was fo un d” ).

The di st ric t co ur t d id no t er r in fin di ng th e ev id en ce s uf fic ie nt to co nv ic t.

-3

-II.

Nick el ou s arg ue s th e di s tri ct co ur t erre d in ex cl ud in g ex pe rt te st im on y on

ey ewit ne ss id en ti fic at io n. “ Thi s co ur t rev ie ws th e ex cl us io n of ex pe rt te st im on y fo r

ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Unit e d St at es v. Ma rt

in

, 39 1 F.3 d 94 9, 95 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ).

“ Exp ert te st im on y is ad m is si bl e on l y if th e ex pe rt ‘is pr op os in g to te st ify to (1 )

sc ie nt ifi c kn owl ed ge th at (2 ) wil l as si st th e tri er of fact to un de rs ta nd or de te rm in e a

fact in is su e.’” Id

. , qu ot in g Dau be rt v. Mer re ll Dow Phar m

. , 5 0 9 U

. S. 57 9, 59 2
(1 99 3) ; Fed. R. Ev id

. 70 2

. The di st ric t co ur t “ ha s br oa d di sc ret io n” in ba la nc in g th e

rel ia bi li ty an d pr ob at iv e va lu e of ev id en ce “ ag ai ns t i t s p r e ju di ci al effe ct .” Unit

ed

St at es v. Kim e , 99 F.3d 87 0, 8 83 (8t h C ir. 1 99 6)

.

Nick el ou s’s ex p e r t op in ed th at th ere was “ a hi gh pr ob ab il it y th at wit ho ut

co ns ci ou s in te nt ” an d “ no in te nt io na l bi as ,” th e cl as sm at e “ m is co ns tru ed so m e ot he r
ob ject li ke a ph on e as a g u n

. ” Th e di st ric t co ur t ex cl ud ed th e pr op os ed te st im on y
be cau se it wou ld no t as si st th e tri er of fact

. “ The ev al ua ti on of ey ewit ne ss te st im on y
is fo r th e jury al on e. It is th e ex cl us iv e pr ov in ce of th e jury to de te rm in e th e
be li ev ab il it y of a wit ne ss

. . . . An ex pe rt is no t pe rm it te d to of fer an op in io n as to th e

be li ev ab il it y or tru th fu ln es s of a vi ct im ’s st or y .” Id

. at 88 4 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d)

. Defen se co un se l is “ cap ab le of ex po si ng to th e jury an y po te nt ia ll y

un rel ia bl e ba se s un de rlyin g” th e ey ewit ne ss id en ti fic at io n “ th ro ug h c r os s

ex am in at io n.” Id

.

The di st ric t co ur t al so ex cl ud ed th e ev id en ce be cau se it s li m it ed rel ev an ce was

o u t weig he d by th e da ng er of m is le ad in g th e jury. As in Ki me , “ th e di st ric t co ur t

pr op erl y reco gn iz ed th e ve ry real da ng er th at th e pr of fere d ex pe rt te st im on y co ul d

ei th er co nf

us e th e jury or cau se it to su bs ti tu te th e ex pe rt’s cred ib il it y as se ss m en t fo r

it s own .” Id

. The d i s t r i ct co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in ex cl ud in g th e

te st im on y he re, es pe ci al ly be cau s e t h e co nv ic ti on di d no t res t so le ly on th e

cl as sm at e’s ey ewit ne ss te st im on y

. Se e Unit ed St at es v. Dav is

, 26 0 F.3 d 96 5, 97 0 (8 th

-4

-Ci r. 20 01 ) (h ol di ng th at

, li ke he re, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t e r r b y ex cl ud in g an

ey ewit ne ss id en ti fic at io n e xp ert be cau se th is co ur t i s “ es pe ci al ly hes it an t t o fi nd an
ab us e of di sc ret io n un le ss th e go ve rn m en t’s cas e ag ai ns t th e de fen da nt res te d

ex cl us iv el y

on un co rro bo rat ed ey ewit ne ss tes ti m on y ”).

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g.

I co nc ur in th e Co ur t’s op in io n bu t writ e se pa rat el y to no te an area of co nc ern

. Dur in g th e two de cad es th at ha ve el ap se d si nc e we de ci de d Uni te d St at es v. Kim e,

99 F.3 d 87 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ), si gn ifi can t de ve lo pm en ts h a v e o ccu rred in ou r

un de rs ta nd in g of m em or y sc ie nc e. The Am eri can Ps y ch ol og ic al Ass oc ia ti on ha s

ta ke n th e po si ti on in a m i c u s f i li ng s th at th e rel ia bi li ty of wit ne ss m em or y can be

in flu en ced by m an y fact or s th at m ay no t be read il y ap pa ren t to la y pe rs on s. See Bri ef

fo r A mer i c a n Ps y ch ol og ic al Ass oc ia ti on as Am ic us Cu ria e Su pp or ti ng Pet it io ne r,

Perr y v. New Ham

ps hi re, 56 5 U.S. 22 8 (2 01 2) (No

. 10 -8 97 4)

, 20 11 W L 34 88 99 4; se e

al so Bri ef fo r A mer i c a n Ps y ch ol og ic al Ass oc ia ti on as Am ic us Cu ria e Su pp or ti ng App el la nt , C om m on w eal th v. W al ke r, 92 A.3d 76 6 (Pa. 20 14 ) (No . 2 8 EAP 2 01 1)

, 20 11 W L 77 84 18 7. Co gn it iv e ps y ch ol og is ts ha ve rem in de d co ur ts th at th e po pu la r

co nc ep ti on of m em or y is of te n in co rrec t, no ti ng t h a t w h e n we “ ex pe rie nc e an

im po rta nt ev en t, we do no t si m pl y reco rd it in ou r m em or y a s a vi de ot ap e reco rd er

wou ld .” Eli zab et h F. Loft us , et al

., Eyewi tn es s Tes ti mon y: Ci vi l an d Cr imi na l § 2- 2,

at 12 (4 th ed

. 20 07 ). The rel at io ns hi p be twee n ey ewit n e s s ob se rv at io ns an d th e
rel ia bi li ty of te st im on y in le ga l syste m s ha s be en an area of in te ns e in te res t in rece nt

y ears an d, as th e sc ie nc e de ve lo ps , so to o wil l ou r ap pl ic at io n o f th e sc ie nc e. See,

e

. g

. , Uni te d St at es v. Bart le tt

, 56 7 F.3 d 90 1, 90 6 (7 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (“ It wil l n o t d o t o

rep ly th at juro rs kn ow fro m th ei r da il y li ve s th at m em or y is fal li bl e. The qu es ti on th at

-5

-s o c i a l sc ie nc e can ad dr es s is ho w fal li bl e, an d th us ho w de ep ly an y g i v e n

id en ti fic at io n s ho ul d b e d is co un te d.” ).

I ag ree th at

, un de r th e fact s as de ve lo pe d in th is cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t

ab us e it s di sc ret io n by ex cl ud in g Dr. Mac li n’s te st im on y

. I no te

, ho wev er, th at so m e

of ou r pr io r la ng ua ge in Kim e m ay be ov erb ro ad in li gh t o f th e d ev el op in g s ci en ce.
Dis tri ct jud ge s wou ld be well se rv ed to co ns id er each cas e in di vi du al ly an d no t ru sh

he ad lo ng in to th e co nc lu si on th at pro ffer ed ex pe rt t es ti m on y sh ou ld be ex cl ud ed in

al l ( o r e v e n m os t) cas es be cau se of it s po te nt ia l to co nf us e th e jury, in va de th e

pr ov in ce of th e jury, or be cau se de fen se co un se l is cap ab le of ex po si ng to th e jury an y

po te nt ia ll y un rel ia bl e ba se s un d e rlyin g th e ey ewit ne ss id en ti fic at io n th ro ug h cro ss

ex am in at io n.

Cu rren t s ci en ti fic ev id en ce reve al s at leas t a c on tro ve rs y ov er wh et he r or no t

th e us ua l l e g a l pr oc es s fo r ro ot in g ou t wit ne ss un rel ia bi li ty is sa ti sf act or y in th e

co nt ex t of ey ewit ne ss id en ti fic at io ns wit ho ut fu ll y in fo rm in g th e jury of th e na tu re of

m em or y —i nc lu di ng th ro ug h th e us e of ex pe rt te s ti m on y

. As I be li ev e th e di st ric t

co ur t in qu iry reg ard in g adm is si bi li ty in each cas e m us t be in di vi du al iz ed an d bas ed

on th e fact s act ua ll y pr es en te d, I si m pl y no te th at di st ric t co ur ts sh ou l d c o n si de r

care fu ll y all of t he cir cu m st an ces be fo re ex erci si ng th ei r di sc ret io n t o e xc lu de su ch

ev id en ce. In th is cas e, th e d is tri ct co ur t d ev el op ed a su ffi ci en t re co rd to su pp or t its

ex erci se of di sc ret io n. Und er ot he r ci rcu m st an ces , it m ig ht well be a be tt er ex erci se

of di sc ret io n t o a dm it th e p ro ffer ed ev id en ce.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-