United States v. Richard Stevens
33 Fed. R. Serv. 831, 935 F.2d 1380, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 11861 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a defendant proffers 'other crimes' evidence to show a third party was the perpetrator ('reverse 404(b)' evidence), it is admissible if relevant under Rule 401 and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by Rule 403 considerations, applying a lower similarity standard than when the prosecution offers such evidence. Expert testimony on the weak correlation between eyewitness confidence and accuracy is admissible under Rule 702 when victims express high confidence in their identifications.
Facts:
- On April 15, 1989, Air Force police officers Jane Smith and Tony McCormack were at a bus shelter at Fort Dix, New Jersey, when a black male robbed them at gunpoint.
- The assailant stole McCormack's wallet, which contained a $100 money order.
- The man then forced Smith to perform fellatio on him while holding the gun to McCormack's head.
- Shortly after the attack at the military police station, both victims identified Richard Stevens from a 'wanted board' on the wall.
- Both victims later identified Stevens again in a photographic array and a physical lineup, expressing a high degree of confidence each time.
- A saliva/semen sample taken from Smith was later consumed during serological testing by the FBI, preventing the defense from performing DNA tests.
- Three days after the assault on Smith and McCormack, another man, Tyrone Mitchell, was robbed at gunpoint in a similar manner and location at Fort Dix.
- The fruits of both robberies—McCormack’s money order and Mitchell’s military ID card—later surfaced near Fort Meade, Maryland, leading investigators to believe the same person committed both crimes.
- When shown a lineup that included Stevens, Mitchell did not identify Stevens as his attacker.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey indicted Richard Stevens for aggravated sexual assault and robbery.
- Stevens filed pretrial motions to dismiss the indictment based on destruction of evidence and to suppress identification testimony, which the district court denied.
- Following a motion in limine, the district court limited the scope of testimony from Stevens's expert on eyewitness identification, precluding testimony on the confidence-accuracy correlation.
- The district court also excluded Stevens's proffered testimony from Tyrone Mitchell regarding a similar crime.
- Stevens's first trial in January 1990 resulted in a mistrial due to a deadlocked jury.
- Following a second trial in March 1990, the jury convicted Stevens on both counts.
- The district court denied Stevens's post-trial motion for a judgment of acquittal and sentenced him to 168 months of incarceration.
- Stevens appealed his conviction and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court abuse its discretion by excluding a defendant's proffered 'reverse 404(b)' evidence of a similar crime committed by a third party and expert testimony on the low correlation between eyewitness confidence and accuracy, where the prosecution's case rests solely on eyewitness identifications?
Opinions:
Majority - Becker, Circuit Judge.
Yes, a district court abuses its discretion by excluding such exculpatory evidence. The court established that a defendant may introduce evidence of similar crimes committed by another person ('reverse 404(b)' evidence) to negate guilt, and that a lower standard of similarity applies than for prosecutorial evidence because the risk of prejudice to the defendant is absent. The admissibility depends on a straightforward balancing test: the evidence must be relevant under FRE 401, and its probative value must not be substantially outweighed by FRE 403 concerns like confusion of the issues or waste of time. Here, the numerous similarities between the charged crime and the Mitchell robbery, especially the 'Fort Meade connection,' made the evidence highly relevant to Stevens's misidentification defense. The court also held that excluding expert testimony on the weak correlation between eyewitness confidence and accuracy was an abuse of discretion under the test from United States v. Downing. Because the victims expressed high confidence, and the counterintuitive nature of the scientific findings would have been helpful to the jury, there was a sufficient 'fit' for the testimony to be admitted.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens a defendant's ability to present a misidentification defense in the Third Circuit. It establishes a defendant-friendly, flexible standard for the admission of 'reverse 404(b)' evidence, clarifying that the other crime need not be a 'signature' crime to be relevant. The ruling also reinforces the principles of United States v. Downing, specifically endorsing expert testimony on the confidence-accuracy correlation as helpful to the jury, particularly when a conviction hinges on highly confident eyewitnesses. The case champions the admission of exculpatory evidence that can create reasonable doubt, thereby shaping how trial courts in the circuit must handle key evidentiary issues in eyewitness-dependent cases.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Richard Stevens