Opinion ID: 2097605
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Bench Trials and the Dyas Criteria

Text: The trial court interpreted the first Dyas prong in terms of her own knowledge, not the ken of the average lay person. Similarly, after referencing Dyas's first prong during the pre-trial hearing, government counsel argued that Dr. Robbins's proposed testimony was certainly not beyond the ken of the fact finder, ... [e]specially in this instance, a very experienced trial court judge. On appeal, the government states that the trial judge studied [the] detailed proffer of Dr. Robbins's proposed testimony, read Dr. Robbins's curriculum vitae, and heard [defense] counsel's lengthy descriptions of the gravamen of Dr. Robbins's opinions and, after doing so, declared that the subject matter was known to her and, far from rejecting it, she `routinely' applied the same factors when making reliability and credibility determinations. Thus, the government suggests that when the Dyas issue is presented in a bench trial, the proper standard is the ken of the [presiding] trial judge, not that of the average lay person. We recognize the substantial judicial experience of the trial judge in this particular case, and we do not dismiss the possibility that a future record on appeal may demonstrate that the trial judge's background is such that proposed testimony, similar to that in this case, is not beyond the ken of the trial judge. Here, however, the record is devoid of any information about the trial judge's knowledge, background, and experience with respect to cognitive studies of eight to ten year-old children, their behavioral characteristics, and the psychological dynamics which may prompt them to make false allegations of sexual abuse. Nor is there any information in the record as to how the factors on which trial judges rely to make routine credibility determinations mirror those which experts like Dr. Robbins identify as relevant to an assessment of whether an eight to ten year-old child has made false allegations of sexual abuse. In sum, we are left with a record indicating that the trial judge made a ruling based on her particular knowledge, but that particularized knowledge may well be beyond the ken of the average lay person. See Poulnot v. District of Columbia, 608 A.2d 134, 143 (D.C.1992) (in the absence of expert testimony, it was error for the trial judge to base his ruling on his own knowledge or perception of the rate at which the body metabolizes alcohol since that was neither a matter[] of common knowledge nor capable of certain verification.). Moreover, it would be exceedingly difficult to conduct appellate review of a matter based on the trial court's unstated personal knowledge or on such a subjective standard. This record is inadequate for us to make a principled conclusion that the ken of the trial judge who presided over Mr. Girardot's bench trial is equivalent, as a standard, to the ken of the average lay person with respect to a jury trial. See Lentino v. Fringe Employee Plans, Inc., 611 F.2d 474, 481 (3d Cir.1979) (rejecting application of a different standard to bench trials governing legal malpractice claims). [7] Furthermore, we have applied the beyond the ken of a layman [or lay person] standard in bench trials, even though it could be said that the trial court was competent to resolve the issue without the aid of an expert. See Drevenak v. Abendschein, 773 A.2d 396, 418 (D.C.2001) (medical malpractice); Harris v. District of Columbia, 601 A.2d 21, 25 (D.C.1991) (driving under the influence). Therefore, we must determine whether the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard under our existing case law. We recognize, as important legal principles, that the defense should be free to introduce appropriate expert testimony, Benn, supra, 978 A.2d at 1269 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), and that fairness and a balanced judicial approach favor permitting use in criminal trials of expert testimony concerning subtle psychological factors that might affect witnesses. Id. at 1270. We have emphasized that the trial court's scrutiny of the proffer [concerning proposed expert testimony] `must take no shortcuts' and the court must exercise its discretion with reference to all the necessary criteria, Burgess, supra, 953 A.2d at 1062 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Since the trial court did not apply the existing standard for the first Dyas prong and did not consider the second and third prongs, we are constrained to hold that the court abused its discretion. Therefore, we remand this case so that the trial court may re-visit the first Dyas prong and, as it has not yet done, apply the second and third Dyas prongs to the defense proffer of Dr. Robbins's proposed testimony. So ordered.