## Facts

- Jerome Walter Kowalski’s brother and sister-in-law were found dead in their home in May 2008, and Kowalski was charged with two counts of first-degree murder.
- Police questioned Kowalski four times over several days at multiple locations; his accounts progressed from references to a “blackout” and a “dream” to a detailed confession after a night in jail.
- During earlier questioning, Kowalski partially accepted an interviewer’s suggestion that there was a “fifty percent chance” he committed the killings, and described blurred memory.
- In the final interview, Kowalski confessed to entering the home and shooting both victims after a brief verbal exchange.
- Detectives challenged inconsistencies between Kowalski’s initial description and physical evidence through role-playing; Kowalski then altered details of his account.
- The confession was the central evidence against him.
- Kowalski sought to present two defense experts: (1) Richard Leo on false confessions and interrogation techniques and whether such techniques were used; and (2) Jeffrey Wendt on Kowalski’s psychological characteristics and susceptibility to interrogation pressures, informed by testing and clinical interviews.
- The trial court excluded Leo under Michigan Rules of Evidence (MRE) 702 and 403, finding the methodology unreliable and the testimony unhelpful and potentially confusing, and excluded Wendt as derivative of Leo.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Michigan Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court properly excluded general expert testimony on false confessions and interrogation techniques under MRE 702 and MRE 403.
2. Whether the trial court erred by excluding defendant-specific psychological testimony about susceptibility to interrogation without conducting an independent MRE 702 and MRE 403 analysis.
3. Whether excluding the proposed expert testimony violated the Sixth Amendment right to present a defense.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the exclusion of Leo’s general false-confession/interrogation-techniques testimony, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion under MRE 702 (and related MRE 403 considerations).
- The Court held the trial court abused its discretion by excluding Wendt’s defendant-specific psychological-susceptibility testimony without separately analyzing its reliability and fit under MRE 702 and weighing it under MRE 403.
- The Court rejected the Sixth Amendment claim as to Leo, holding that applying MRE 702’s reliability and helpfulness requirements was not arbitrary or disproportionate.
- The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for the trial court to determine whether the defendant-specific psychological evidence is sufficiently reliable and otherwise admissible.

## Legal Principles

- Under MRE 702, the trial court must act as gatekeeper and admit expert testimony only if the expert is qualified, the testimony will assist the trier of fact, and the testimony rests on reliable principles and methods reliably applied to sufficient facts or data.
- MRE 403 permits exclusion of otherwise relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by risks such as confusion of the issues or misleading the jury.
- General expert testimony on false confessions and interrogation tactics may be excluded if the proponent fails to show reliable methodology and a meaningful contribution beyond jurors’ common understanding, or if it risks being perceived as expert commentary on confession credibility.
- Defendant-specific psychological evidence regarding traits or conditions affecting susceptibility to interrogation is analytically distinct from generalized false-confession theory and requires an independent MRE 702 reliability/fit assessment and MRE 403 balancing.
- The Sixth Amendment right to present a defense does not guarantee admission of proposed expert evidence; exclusion based on neutral evidentiary rules like reliability and helpfulness does not violate the Constitution absent arbitrary or disproportionate application.

## Conclusion

The court upheld exclusion of generalized false-confession expert testimony but required a separate, defendant-focused evidentiary analysis for psychological susceptibility testimony, concluding that routine application of MRE 702 and 403 to exclude unreliable or unhelpful expert evidence does not, by itself, violate the right to present a defense.


People v. Kowalski, 492 Mich. 106, 821 N.W.2d 14 (2012)