Opinion ID: 1441425
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The sufficiency of the Dyas hearing.

Text: Nixon's first contention is that the trial judge did not make a sufficient inquiry to determine whether Dr. Dutton's proposed testimony satisfied the requirements of Dyas. Although Nixon, who is represented by new counsel on appeal, now claims that his trial attorney requested a more extensive hearing, he has failed to refer us to any place in the record in which counsel objected to the basic procedure utilized by the trial judge in determining whether Dr. Dutton should be permitted to testify. See, e.g., Hunter v. United States, 606 A.2d 139, 144 (D.C.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 991, 113 S.Ct. 509, 121 L.Ed.2d 444 (1992) (points not asserted with sufficient precision to indicate distinctly the party's thesis will normally be spurned on appeal) (quoting Miller v. Avirom, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 367, 369-70, 384 F.2d 319, 321-22 (1967)). [10] In order to prevail on this claim, Nixon must therefore demonstrate plain error. In the present case, the trial judge held a proceeding in limine with respect to Dr. Dutton's proposed testimony [11] and, as we have seen, concluded that Dr. Dutton would be permitted to testify with respect to three specific subjects. The judge did not hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue, but Nixon concedes in his brief that a trial court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing in every case where an expert is proffered. See, e.g., Ibn-Tamas II, 455 A.2d at 893 n. 1. The judge also took judicial notice of, and adopted, the transcript of a Dyas hearing held by Judge A. Franklin Burgess, Jr. in United States v. Darryl Drew, Crim. No. F-4440-95. In that case, Judge Burgess examined in detail the question whether Dr. Dutton's proposed testimony on BWS and related subjects satisfied the Dyas standard. [12] Although Nixon's attorney argued that the facts of this case were different from those in Darryl Drew, he did not object to the consideration of the Darryl Drew transcript. Under these circumstances, Nixon has not shown that the judge committed obvious error or that a miscarriage of justice occurred. We discern no plain error, or error at all.