## Facts

- Abdul Raimi Mamah was charged with possession with intent to distribute more than 100 grams of heroin under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
- In May 2000, Mamah told Falilat Giwa he would travel to Chicago for a narcotics transaction; Giwa was an FBI confidential informant and recorded the conversation under agent direction.
- Mamah traveled from Tulsa to Chicago, checked into a hotel, and arranged to meet Giwa in his room; agents sought to avoid sending Giwa alone into the room.
- After Mamah refused to meet in the lobby, an agent left to seek a warrant while another monitored exits.
- Agent John Schulte encountered Mamah in the hotel lobby, identified himself, and obtained Mamah’s consent to search the hotel room.
- Agents found $5,000 in cash and approximately 300 grams of heroin hidden behind drapes.
- After arrest, Mamah received Miranda warnings, agreed to an interview, initially denied knowledge, and then signed a written confession transcribed by an agent.
- At trial, Mamah argued the confession was false and sought to call two experts: an anthropologist (Dr. Deborah Pellow) on Ghanaian cultural influences allegedly increasing susceptibility to false confessions, and a sociologist (Dr. Richard Ofshe) on interrogation techniques and false confessions.
- The district court excluded both experts under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, and a jury convicted Mamah.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 in excluding expert testimony offered to support a false-confession defense, including testimony about cultural susceptibility and interrogation-induced false confessions.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Dr. Pellow’s testimony under Rule 702.
- The court also upheld the exclusion of Dr. Ofshe’s testimony as within the district court’s Rule 702 discretion.
- The court emphasized deferential appellate review of Daubert/Rule 702 determinations and the trial judge’s gatekeeping role.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 702 and Daubert, expert testimony must be reliable, relevant, and helpful to the trier of fact; trial courts act as gatekeepers.
- A court may exclude expert testimony if the expert’s qualifications do not match the specific question (e.g., general cultural expertise versus assessing an individual’s interrogation susceptibility).
- A court may exclude expert testimony if its probative value is limited or if it risks confusing the jury or causing unfair prejudice (including inviting improper comparisons between foreign governmental abuses and U.S. law enforcement conduct not alleged in the case).
- District courts have broad discretion in determining whether proffered expert testimony will assist the jury or improperly intrude on the jury’s role in evaluating credibility and the accuracy of a confession.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that the district court acted within its Rule 702 discretion in excluding proposed expert testimony aimed at casting the defendant’s confession as culturally or psychologically induced, and it affirmed the heroin-distribution conviction.


United States v. Mamah, 332 F.3d 475 (7th Cir. 2003)