U.S. v. Roach
| Decision Date | 14 July 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 11–1132.,11–1132. |
| Citation | 644 F.3d 763 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Brian Dion ROACH, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Edward Albright, AFPD, argued, Randall B. Turner, AFPD, on the brief, Pierre, SD, for appellant.Mikal G. Hanson, AUSA, argued, Pierre, SD, for appellee.Before COLLOTON and BENTON, Circuit Judges, and KOPF,1 District Judge.PER CURIAM.
A jury found Brian Roach guilty of aggravated sexual abuse of a child in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c) and 2246(2)(D). Roach appeals, arguing that the district court 2 improperly admitted expert witness testimony. We affirm.
Roach's sole issue on appeal is that the district court abused its discretion when it allowed Dr. Edward Mailloux to describe to the jury the emotional and behavioral characteristics often observed in sexually abused children. The court reviews the district court's decision to admit expert testimony for abuse of discretion, according it substantial deference. United States v. Bailey, 571 F.3d 791, 803 (8th Cir.2009). Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides that “a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” may testify to specialized knowledge that will “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” In the context of child sexual abuse cases, we have held that a qualified expert can inform the jury of characteristics in sexually abused children. United States v. Whitted, 11 F.3d 782, 785 (8th Cir.1993).
Roach argues that Dr. Mailloux was not qualified to testify about the emotional and behavioral characteristics of sexually abused children because he lacked formal education or training in child psychology and child psychiatry; rather, his knowledge of “child abuse pediatrics” was derived solely from on-the-job observations and attendance at conferences and seminars. Roach also argues that the government failed to establish a proper foundation at trial to support the reliability of Dr. Mailloux's testimony. We find Roach's arguments to be without merit. Rule 702 does not rank academic training over demonstrated practical experience. United States v. Anderson, 446 F.3d 870, 875 (8th Cir.2006); Fox v. Dannenberg, 906 F.2d 1253, 1256 (8th Cir.1990). Dr. Mailloux is a board-certified pediatrician who has served as Medical Director for Child's Voice, a child abuse evaluation center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gipson v. State
...and punctuation omitted.) Billings v. State, 293 Ga. 99, 104–105(5), 745 S.E.2d 583 (2013). See United States v. Roach, 644 F.3d 763, 764 (8th Cir.2011) (expertise can be derived from “on-the-job observations and attendance at conferences and seminars” because the federal rules of evidence ......
-
Peters v. Woodbury Cnty.
...discretion, according ‘substantial deference’ to the district court's decision to admit expert testimony.” (citing United States v. Roach, 644 F.3d 763, 763–64 (8th Cir.2011))). “The proponent of the expert testimony bears the burden to prove its admissibility.” Menz v. New Holland North Am......
-
Thomas v. Barze
...(Id. at 15–16.)Defendants argue that these opinions are permissible, relying on the Eighth Circuit's opinion in United States v. Roach, 644 F.3d 763 (8th Cir.2011), which they argue indicates that an expert can be qualified based on experience, even when a topic is not within their traditio......
-
Catipovic v. Turley
...practical experience.’ ” David E. Watson, P.C. v. United States, 668 F.3d 1008, 1014 (8th Cir.2012) (quoting United States v. Roach, 644 F.3d 763, 764 (8th Cir.2011) (per curiam)).On the other hand, I agree with the defendants that Mr. Ott's original opinions, in his February 2013 report, b......