Opinion ID: 78396
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Defense and Government Photos

Text: At trial, Sarras argued that he was not the man in the laptop photos because he has a mole on his penis, and no mole is visible in the laptop photos. [6] However, the government contended that no mole is visible in the laptop photos because they show only the top of the penis and that Sarras's mole is actually near the bottom of his penis. At trial, it was undisputed that Sarras has a mole on his penis, but the mole's location was vigorously disputed. We thus review the photos of Sarras's penis introduced at the second trial. Defense counsel had pictures of Sarras's penis taken to permit the jury to visually compare Sarras's penis and the penis depicted in the laptop photos. The court designated Thomas Hemphill of the Medical Examiner's Office as the photographer, and the government's case agent attended. Hemphill photographed Sarras's genitalia, both flaccid and with an erection (the defense photos). As Sarras prepared himself for the erection pictures, all others present  Sarras's counsel, the marshals, and the FBI case agent  turned their backs. When they turned around, Sarras had his hands near his erect penis. Sarras kept his hands there while Hemphill stood on a chair and took overhead pictures of Sarras's penis. A mole on the top of Sarras's erect penis is visible in the defense photos. Before the second trial, the government took another set of photos of Sarras's penis, but this time with a doctor holding it. Specifically, the government moved to take more pictures of Sarras's penis alleging (1) the defense photos were not taken from the same angle as the laptop photos but were taken over Sarras's right shoulder and (2) Sarras had strategically manipulated his penis in the defense photos so that his mole would be visible from that viewpoint. The government proposed that Dr. David Jablonski, a board-certified urologist, be present for another set of photos. The district court granted the government's motion. At the second photo shoot, Sarras stood while Dr. Jablonski held Sarras's flaccid penis between his thumb and forefinger to ensure that the penis was completely straight. Dr. Jablonski continued to hold Sarras's flaccid penis while an unidentified photographer took photos from the top and from the side (the government photos). The government photos taken from overhead do not show a mole on the top of Sarras's penis. In the pictures taken from the side, the mole appears to be at the 8 o'clock position, near the bottom of the penis rather than on or near the top. [7] Before the second trial, Sarras moved in limine to exclude Dr. Jablonski's testimony or, in the alternative, for a Daubert hearing. [8] Although Dr. Jablonski stated that he placed Sarras's penis in a neutral position for photographing, Sarras claimed that Dr. Jablonski (1) actually turned the skin of the Defendant's penis in order to manipulate the position of the `mole' and veins and (2) there was no indication that the testimony of Dr. Jablonski would comply with Daubert.  Prior to jury selection in the second trial, the district court orally denied Sarras's motion. The court stated that Dr. Jablonski's credentials are sufficient for him to testify to what he intends to testify to. So I don't need a Daubert hearing. The government explained that it intended to introduce its photos on rebuttal only if Sarras introduced the defense photos.