## Facts

- A 15-year-old girl disappeared in Illinois in September 1993; her decomposed body was found in an Indiana cornfield in November 1993.
- During a later investigation into the defendant’s stalking of other teenage girls, law enforcement obtained admissions and a written confession to kidnapping and murdering the victim.
- The defendant was federally charged with kidnapping for sexual gratification and willfully transporting the victim from Illinois to Indiana.
- A first jury conviction and life sentence were vacated on appeal and remanded for a new trial due to improper exclusion of defense expert testimony on false confessions under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and *Daubert*.
- On retrial, the government again relied substantially on the confession and other evidence; the defense sought to present expert testimony on eyewitness-identification reliability and to introduce hearsay pointing to alternative suspects.
- The district court excluded the proposed eyewitness-identification expert testimony, excluded certain third-party hearsay, admitted government expert testimony about sex offenders and crime-scene behavior, and the jury again convicted; the court again imposed life imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and *Daubert* by excluding defense expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identification.
2. Whether the district court erred by excluding hearsay statements implicating alternative suspects, including whether exclusion violated the right to present a defense.
3. Whether the prosecutor’s opening statement comments about potential defense alibi witnesses deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
4. Whether the district court erred under Rules 702, 403, and *Daubert* by admitting government expert testimony concerning sex-offender behavior and crime-scene characteristics.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction and life sentence.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the defense eyewitness-identification expert under Rule 702 because the proffered testimony would not materially assist the jury.
- The court upheld exclusion of the third-party hearsay as inadmissible under the hearsay rules and not within a valid exception, including Rule 804(b)(3).
- The court rejected the claim of unfair prejudice from the prosecutor’s opening statement, concluding there was no improper comment on the defendant’s silence and no reversible prejudice.
- The court found no reversible error in admitting the government’s expert testimony, concluding it was sufficiently reliable and relevant and not excludable under Rule 403.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts have broad discretion to admit or exclude expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702; exclusion is permissible when the testimony will not assist the jury in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue.
- *Daubert* requires the district court to assess the reliability and relevance of expert testimony, but appellate review of the resulting evidentiary ruling is deferential.
- Third-party culpability evidence offered through out-of-court statements is inadmissible if it is hearsay and does not satisfy a recognized exception; statements against penal interest under Rule 804(b)(3) require unavailability and corroborating circumstances indicating trustworthiness.
- Prosecutorial comments in opening statement warrant reversal only if they are improper and result in unfair prejudice; references that do not comment on the defendant’s failure to testify and are mitigated by instructions may be harmless.
- Expert testimony concerning offender behavior or crime-scene features may be admissible when offered to help the jury interpret evidence, and Rule 403 exclusion applies only when unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld the defendant’s second kidnapping conviction and life sentence, holding that the district court acted within its discretion in excluding a defense eyewitness-identification expert and third-party hearsay, rejecting claims of prejudicial opening remarks, and affirming admission of the government’s expert evidence under Rules 702 and 403 and *Daubert*.


United States v. Hall, 165 F.3d 1095 (7th Cir. 1999)