Court Opinion

ID: 9465599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:50:53.913501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:16.210079
License: Public Domain

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
Upon examining the entire record, I am convinced that the Government provided sufficient evidence to sustain Massey’s conviction for bank robbery. In this respect, I agree with the majority.
However, I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that the testimony about statistical probability, as it relates to hair identification, constituted plain error.
The district court’s interrogation of the FBI hair expert and the prosecutor’s closing argument that its proof was better than the purity of Ivory soap improperly suggested *682that, as a matter of statistical probability, based upon undocumented studies referred to in the trial testimony, Carl Massey’s guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the existence of suspect hair samples microscopically identical to known hair samples from Massey represents impressive evidence that such samples come from the same person, it does not constitute conclusive proof of guilt. To argue in terms of mathematical probability that such hair sample proof establishes Massey’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt tends to mislead the jury.
In this case, however, other evidence than the hair samples points to Massey as one of the two bank robbers. That other evidence by itself is probably insufficient to sustain a conviction. However, given the various coincidences in the evidence tending to link Massey to the crime, the jury could reasonably rule out other persons than Massey as the source of the crucial hair specimens found in the ski mask.
Plain error embodies the notion that an obvious mistake seriously affecting the fairness or integrity of a judicial proceeding has been committed. Courts exercise their power to notice plain error only in exceptional circumstances. United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 56 S.Ct. 391, 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936). We have described plain error as error “of such sufficient gravity as to substantially affect the rights of the defendant and prejudice him in the eyes of the jury to the extent that our failure to note [it] would perpetuate a miscarriage of justice.” Chubet v. United States, 414 F.2d 1018, 1021 (8th Cir. 1969).
The errors alleged in this case may have unduly emphasized the importance of the hair samples, but, in light of all the evidence presented by the Government linking Massey to the crime, including the hair sample testimony, I do not deem the trial judge’s interrogation or the prosecutor’s closing argument as plain errors causing undue prejudice to Massey in the trial of this case.
I would affirm the conviction.