## Facts

- A robber took about $3,400 from a Michigan bank after presenting a note stating he had a gun and demanding large bills.
- The robbery lasted about two minutes and was witnessed by a teller who received the note, a second teller, and a customer entering the bank at the same time as the robber.
- The witnesses later identified James Smithers as the robber; the prosecution’s case relied primarily on these eyewitness identifications, with little physical evidence.
- Smithers defended on misidentification grounds and sought to introduce expert testimony explaining research-based factors that can reduce eyewitness accuracy (including stress, weapon focus, cross-racial identification limits, and suggestion).
- The district court excluded the eyewitness-identification expert without conducting a full relevance-and-reliability inquiry under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert.
- The district court also limited certain testimony from Smithers’s wife and answered jury questions during deliberations in a manner Smithers challenged as prejudicial.
- Smithers was convicted of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert by excluding expert testimony on eyewitness identification without a meaningful reliability and relevance analysis.
2. Whether exclusion of that expert testimony, in a case centered on eyewitness identifications, deprived the defendant of a fair opportunity to present a defense.
3. Whether limitations on the wife’s testimony and the court’s responses to juror questions independently required reversal.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the district court abused its discretion by excluding the eyewitness-identification expert without an adequate Rule 702/Daubert inquiry.
- The error was not harmless because eyewitness identification was the core evidence of guilt and the expert testimony could have materially assisted the jury.
- The court provided guidance for proceedings on remand regarding the scope of lay testimony and careful, neutral handling of juror questions.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts must perform a real Rule 702 and Daubert gatekeeping analysis when evaluating expert testimony, including assessing reliability and fit rather than excluding categories of testimony by assumption.
- Expert testimony on eyewitness identification may be admissible when it rests on a substantial scientific literature and would assist jurors on matters not necessarily within common understanding.
- When the prosecution’s case depends largely on eyewitness identifications, exclusion of otherwise admissible expert testimony addressing identification reliability is more likely to be prejudicial and not harmless.
- Cross-examination and generic credibility instructions do not automatically substitute for expert testimony where the proffer concerns counterintuitive, research-supported factors affecting memory and perception.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit ordered a new trial because the district court excluded eyewitness-identification expert testimony without conducting the required Rule 702 and Daubert analysis, and the exclusion likely affected the verdict in a case that depended primarily on eyewitness identifications.


United States v. Smithers, 212 F.3d 306 (6th Cir. 2000)