Opinion ID: 42471
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility of Testimony on Certainty

Text: Smith contends that the district court erred in permitting eyewitnesses Davis, Shields and Roberts to comment on their level of certainty when testifying about their identification of Smith. We review the district court’s decision to admit evidence for clear abuse of discretion. United States v. Smith, 122 F.3d 1355, 1357 (11th Cir. 1997). No case law in this Circuit or the Supreme Court has been brought to our attention that prohibits the admission of testimony by an eyewitness about their level of certainty in an identification.4 Nor was the testimony precluded under the Federal Rules of Evidence. We have never concluded that testimony about an eyewitness’s level of certainty has a tendency to confuse the jury so that it should be precluded pursuant to Rule 403’s prohibition of information creating “unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. In fact, in assessing the reliability of an unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure, we consider the level of a witness’s certainty. Cikora v. Dugger, 840 F.2d 893, 895 (11th Cir. 1988) (discussing Neil v. Biggers, 93 S.Ct. 375, 382 4 Smith claims that the Supreme Court’s decision in Simmons v. South Carolina, 114 S.Ct. 2187 (1994), stands for the proposition that a trial court’s failure to correct any jury misperception results in a due process violation. We, however, do not read Simmons this way. Simmons stands for a more narrow proposition: briefly stated, that due process requires a jury to be informed -- in determining whether to impose a death sentence or life imprisonment -- that a defendant’s life sentence renders him parole ineligible. 8 (1972)). We note that the evaluation of an eyewitness’s testimony is precisely the kind of analysis that is reserved for the jury. See United States v. Billue, 994 F.2d 1562, 1565 (11th Cir. 1993) (“This court does not evaluate witnesses’ credibility. Such determinations are within the exclusive province of the jury.”). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the eyewitness testimony on this matter.