When Voir Dire Goes Wrong
As we know at PsychLaw.net, many times whether from impatience or ignorance, trial judges cut off voir dire before a complete and thorough examination is conducted, often leading to the admission of unreliable, prejudicial evidence. In one such case, State v. Vidrine, the Louisiana Court of Appeal vacated and remanded a conviction of sexual battery of a juvenile after a trial court refused to allow the defendant to conduct a hearing to examine the reliability of an expert’s proposed opinion.
In Vidrine, the court had allowed the expert to be examined during a pre-trial hearing, but only as to her qualifications. In finding the court had committed an abuse of discretion, the Louisiana appellate court noted the expert had testified as to “her background, training, and professional experience … [and] the nature of her testimony as an expert in previous cases,” but “did not state what methodology or reasoning she applied.” The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction.
The reverse scenario occurs when the court inappropriately excludes expert testimony. For example, in Harris v. State, while holding the Mississippi trial court’s decision to exclude defendant’s expert was ultimately harmless error, the Court of Appeals found:
Dr. Merrell testified he had three years of experience as an emergency-room physician and had treated between two hundred and three hundred patients. Additionally, Dr. Merrell testified that he was familiar with the common side effects of cocaine, benzodiazepines, and marijuana. Based on his medical training and experience, Dr. Merrell was qualified to testify regarding the common side effects of the drugs found in [the victim’s] system.
Likewise, in U.S. v. Belyea, a trial judge’s rejection of an expert on false confessions with the simple conclusion that “jurors know people lie” and that a confession may be false was “something juries decide all the time, and I don’t need an expert to help them in that respect,” was reversed as the appellate court held the “approach is erroneous as a matter of law because it overlooks Daubert’s general requirement for a particularized determination in each case.” The appellate court continued:
It appears to us that the expert in this case … would have addressed whether and how these particular factors correlate to false confessions. Belyea’s motion in limine states that [the expert] would testify that false confessions in fact occur, and that various techniques used by law enforcement agents, such as false accusations and false promises can influence a person’s decision to confess falsely…[and] that particular characteristics of the person interrogated, such as … anxiety problems, can affect the likelihood that a confession is false.
Apparently no voir dire was conducted in the Oregon case, State v. Olsen. In Olsen, the trial court denied a defendant’s pre-trial motion to exclude the expert’s diagnosis, and allowed a physician who examined the alleged child victim to testify about his diagnosis of sexual abuse, which was “predicated [only] on what complainant’s mother told him as well as complainant’s statements during the interview.” The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case due to the lack of physical findings to corroborate the diagnosis.