## Facts

- An armed assailant attempted to rob the Golden Market convenience store in Richmond, Virginia, and shot the owner, Sang Foo Yoon, in the hand.
- Yoon and employee Roberta Schwartz recognized the assailant as a prior customer but did not know his name and gave somewhat inconsistent descriptions.
- Approximately six weeks after the offense, both witnesses separately identified Cornelius Wayne Lester from a photo array prepared after federal authorities assumed jurisdiction.
- Lester was charged with interference with commerce by force (Hobbs Act), 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and possession and discharge of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii).
- The prosecution’s case depended largely on the two eyewitness identifications.
- Lester sought to present a psychology expert (Dr. Brian Cutler) to testify about research-based factors affecting eyewitness reliability, including exposure time, retention interval, weapon focus, stress, confidence–accuracy, and cross-race identification.
- After an initial denial for inadequate scientific foundation, the court permitted a renewed proffer, held a second Daubert hearing, and considered supplemental briefing to determine admissibility.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, expert testimony on specific factors affecting eyewitness identification reliability is sufficiently reliable and helpful to be admitted at trial.
2. Whether otherwise reliable portions of the proposed testimony should be excluded under Rule 403 because they would confuse or mislead the jury.

## Decision

- The court granted the renewed request in part and denied it in part.
- The court admitted limited expert testimony on weapon focus, certain effects of stress, and the relationship between witness confidence and identification accuracy.
- The court excluded the proposed testimony on cross-race identification as presented, concluding it lacked adequate clarity and case-linked quantification and posed a Rule 403 risk of confusing or misleading the jury.
- The court required the admitted testimony to be confined to scientifically supported, case-relevant topics that assist the jury without opining on the ultimate accuracy of the identifications.

## Legal Principles

- Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert, the proponent must show the expert’s methodology is scientifically valid and properly applied to the matters at issue, and that the testimony will assist the factfinder.
- Eyewitness-identification expert testimony may be admitted when it addresses empirically supported phenomena that are not necessarily within common juror understanding and bears directly on how jurors should evaluate identification evidence.
- Even scientifically grounded testimony may be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing issues or misleading the jury.
- Courts must evaluate eyewitness-identification experts on a case-specific basis, admitting only those topics supported by an adequate foundation and presented in a manner the jury can apply without speculation.

## Conclusion

The court permitted a narrowly limited eyewitness-identification expert to explain weapon focus and certain stress and confidence–accuracy effects under Rule 702/Daubert, but excluded cross-race identification opinions under Rule 403 due to insufficiently concrete, case-applicable support and the risk of juror confusion.


United States v. Lester, 254 F. Supp. 2d 602 (E.D. Va. 2003)