Opinion ID: 78396
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sarras's Expert Dr. Ferdon

Text: Another trial issue involved the testimony of Sarras's retained expert, Dr. Edward J. Ferdon. Dr. Ferdon specialized in erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation. Dr. Ferdon examined Sarras in both the flaccid and erect states. The examination took about 15 to 20 minutes. His 2007 report offered these opinions: (1) Sarras' erect penis has a several millimeter mole on the proximal right shaft dorsolaterally at approximately the 2:00 o'clock position when looking from Sarras's perspective out from Sarras's body; (2) [t]his mole is not seen on the penis in any of the [laptop] photographs; (3) the position and lengths of the visible dorsal vein and other superficial veins on the shaft of Mr. Sarras's [erect] penis are different from those of the penis in the [laptop] photographs; and (4) [a]ll of these facts lead me to conclude that Mr. Sarras's penis is not seen in the [laptop] photographs. [9] The government moved to exclude Dr. Ferdon's testimony on numerous substantive grounds discussed later. [10] Before the first trial, the district court granted the government's motion. The district court found that: (1) jurors were equally capable of making a visual comparison between the penises in the defense and laptop photos; (2) this is not a subject necessitating expertise; no specialized knowledge is required here; (3) [t]he doctor's observations are simply a visual comparison between the characteristics of the penises; (4) Dr. Ferdon's testimony concerns a matter within the understanding of the average layperson; (5) [t]he same visual comparison can be made just as easily by a non-expert, including the jurors themselves (from photographs); (6) Sarras fails to establish the reliability of Dr. Ferdon's [vein] methodology, [i]n fact, the Defendant does not address the [methodology-reliability] issue, and thus Dr. Ferdon's proposed testimony fails to meet the Daubert standard; and (7) even if it met the Daubert standard, the testimony would be unduly prejudicial because of its potential to mislead the jury. Despite its ruling on the motion, the district court in the second trial ultimately admitted considerable testimony by Dr. Ferdon. It still precluded him from giving an identification opinion that, based on his visual comparison of the veins in the erect penises in the defense and laptop photos, Sarras was not the person in the laptop photos. The district court relied on its earlier Daubert and other rulings as to Dr. Ferdon to support that decision.