Rejection of Expert Witness Testimony Gets Conviction Overturned

An expert's testimony on the reliability of a confession was admissible, a U.S. appeals court has ruled, reversing the defendant's conviction as a felon in possession of a firearm, a conviction with a minimum 15 year sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).

In United States of America v. Antonio West, [U.S. Court of Appeals 7th Cir.], Antonio West was a felon convicted of possessing a firearm, an old M1 carbine that apparently belonged to his late father, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1). The gun was found in the attic of West's family home after he had signed a consent to search.

West had earlier been detained with several other men who were in an apartment with a stolen television. When policed asked West where the other stolen television was, he said it was in the attic of his home.

After finding the carbine behind the television in the attic, police questioned West about the gun and, according to police, West said that the carbine was his and he kept it in the attic where it would be safe. The interview was not recorded and West did not sign a written confession.

Unbeknownst to police at the time, the house was West's late father's home, who had died about six months earlier. West lived off-and-on in a nursing facility as he suffered from various mental health conditions.

West's attorney moved to suppress West's statements made while in police custody. At the suppression hearing, Dr. Steven Dinwiddie, a forensic psychology expert witness¹ who had examined West and administered a number of psychological tests, presented testimony that showed West was highly suggestible — prone to changing his answers to conform to an authoritative figure.

The government called its own forensic psychologist who had also examined West and agreed that West had a low IQ (verbal 73) and suffered from significant mental illness.

The judge denied the suppression motion, finding West competent to understand his rights.

A week before trial, West's attorney filed a motion in limine to admit Dr. Dinwiddie's testimony to assist the jury in evaluating the confession, negate the intent of knowingly possessing the gun, and to assist the jury in assessing West's "somehwat unusual demeanor" in the courtroom.

The government opposed the motion as West's attorney failed to comply with the requirements of disclosure of the expert's qualifications and opinions [Rule 16(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure]. The government also argued that West was trying to raise an insanity defense. It did not object to admitting the testimony on the trustworthiness of the confession.

The trial judge denied the defense motion, criticizing West's attorney for failing to follow procedure, and concluding that evidence of West's mental disability was not relevant and that the testimony would improperly invite the jury to acquit based on insanity.

West's attorney reminded the court that he sought to admit the expert's testimony on the issues of the confession, and again the government did not object. However, the judge ruled that the testimony was not admissible "… for any purpose."

The appeals court disagreed, finding that the trial court rejected the testimony as a "backdoor" insanity acquittal without addressing the grounds of admissibility. "Evidence bearing on the trustworthiness of a confession," the appeals court found, "is generally relevant and admissible unless absent some specific reason to exclude it." The weight of a confession is "a matter that is exclusively for the jury to assess."