Opinion ID: 78396
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Ferdon

Text: Sarras contends that the district court improperly limited Dr. Ferdon's testimony. [24] Sarras argues that Dr. Ferdon would have testified that (1) Sarras's erect penis has a several millimeter mole on the proximal right shaft dorso-laterally at approximately the 2:00 [position], (2) [t]his mole is not seen on the penis in any of the [laptop] photographs, (3) [t]his mole would most certainly have been visible in the [laptop] photographs, (4) the position and lengths of the visible dorsal vein and other superficial veins on the shaft of Mr. Sarras' penis are different from those of the penis in the [laptop] photographs, and (5) the penis in the laptop photos was not Sarras's penis. Sarras's arguments fail because the trial transcripts reveal that Dr. Ferdon effectively testified to the substance of these matters at trial. As to the mole, it was undisputed that the laptop photos show no mole on the top of the penis and that Sarras has a mole on his penis. As to the location of Sarras's mole, Dr. Ferdon testified that he examined Sarras's erect penis and the mole is in the dorsolateral, meaning towards the top, towards the side but in  between the direct side and the actual top. He essentially testified that, in terms of a clock, Sarras's mole was visible at 10 o'clock when standing directly in front of and looking back at Sarras's penis and at 2 o'clock when looking from Sarras's perspective out from Sarras's body. Dr. Ferdon further testified that he examined the defense photos (which showed the mole on the top of Sarras's erect penis) and determined that the penis appeared to be in the neutral position and not rotated by Sarras. By contrast, Dr. Ferdon testified that, in the government photos, Dr. Jablonski appeared to be pulling Sarras's penis down and to the right, which would have pulled the mole to the bottom of the penis. Dr. Ferdon also testified about the dorsal vein and that, when he examined Sarras, the veins in Sarras's penis were in the same positions as the veins in the defense photos. Thus, the jury heard from Dr. Ferdon that the defense photos (that showed the mole) were accurate but that Dr. Jablonski manipulated the government photos (that did not show the mole). Dr. Ferdon further testified that he examined Sarras's penis, that it was uncircumcised, and that he examined the laptop photos. In his medical opinion, two of the laptop photos showed a penis that, unlike Sarras's, was clearly completely circumcised. Three of the laptop photos showed a penis that appear[ed] to be or apparently was circumcised. One of the laptop photos showed a penis he would say [was] circumcised. The clear import of Dr. Ferdon's testimony was that he had examined Sarras's erect penis and Sarras, having an uncircumcised penis with a mole at the 2 o'clock position in the accurate defense photos, could not have been the male in the laptop photos, where the penis is circumcised and no mole is visible. Given the nature and extent of Dr. Ferdon's admitted testimony, Sarras's real complaint on appeal is that Dr. Ferdon was not allowed to issue an identification opinion concluding that, based on a comparison of the veins in the laptop and defense photos, Sarras is not the person in the laptop photos. What happened in the district court materially informs this issue. In the district court, the government's motion in limine argued that Ferdon's vein comparison as an identification methodology was unreliable under Daubert. The government's motion stated that [t]here is no peer reviewed literature, text book, medical science or other scientific body of data on which the opinion is based, and there is no indication that `vein-mapping' as a means of identification is generally accepted in the medical or scientific community, has been tested, or has been subjected to peer review or publication. The government claimed that Dr. Ferdon's vein-comparison methodology was unreliable because, inter alia, the degree to which the veins in a male's genitalia are enlarged and visible depends on blood flow and degree of arousal, among other things. Sarras's response in the district court addressed neither argument. Rather, Sarras responded that Dr. Ferdon had examined 15,000 penises, specialized in erectile dysfunction, and was qualified to give an opinion that it was not Sarras in the laptop photos. The district court then concluded that Sarras had not shown that Dr. Ferdon's vein-comparison methodology was a reliable identification technique under Daubert. On appeal, Sarras contends that (1) the jury was not equally capable of visually comparing the veins in the photos of Sarras's penis to those in the penis in the laptop photos and (2) Dr. Ferdon had specialized knowledge warranting his giving an identification opinion about whether Sarras was the person in the laptop photos. See Fed.R.Evid. 702 (stating that the trial court may permit expert testimony when scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue). In other words, the issue is whether the jury was equally capable of comparing the penises in the photos, or whether expert testimony was permissible to identify the person in the laptop photos. That is a close issue. But we need not decide it because, in any event, the district court did not abuse its discretion in its Daubert ruling that Sarras had not established that Dr. Ferdon's methodologycomparing veins in erect penises was a reliable identification methodology. See United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1260 ( en banc ) (11th Cir.2004) (The proponent of expert testimony always bears the burden to show that his expert is qualified to testify competently regarding the matters he intend[ed] to address; [ ] the methodology by which the expert reach[ed] his conclusions is sufficiently reliable; and [] the testimony assists the trier of fact. (alterations in original) (quotation marks omitted)). Notably, Sarras fails to distinguish between the doctor's qualifications to testify about penises and the method by which the doctor reaches his conclusion. The district court did not rule Dr. Ferdon was unqualified to testify about penises. Rather, the court ruled that Sarras had not shown that the doctor's methodology comparing veins in erect peniseswas a sufficiently reliable identification technique for Dr. Ferdon to opine that Sarras was not the person in the laptop photos. In fact, no record evidence explains the so-called methodology of comparing veins in erect penises as an identification technique. Perhaps blood flow or degree of arousal has no visual effect on the veins in penises. Who knows? The record is silent. Sarras thus has not shown error, much less reversible error, in the district court's Daubert ruling as to Dr. Ferdon's methodology. See United States v. Brown, 415 F.3d 1257, 1264-66 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining the limited nature of appellate review of Daubert issues, why it is difficult to persuade a court of appeals to reverse a district court's judgment on Daubert grounds, and that [w]hat is true about the review of evidentiary issues in general applies with equal or even greater force to Daubert issues in particular, an area where the abuse of discretion standard thrives).