United States v. Bighead

Summary

The Ninth Circuit affirmed Charles Bighead's conviction for sexual abuse of a minor under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2243 and 1153. The court held that expert testimony concerning delayed disclosure and memory characteristics of child sexual-abuse victims was admissible as specialized knowledge and did not improperly bolster the victim's credibility. Judge Noonan dissented, concluding that the testimony required scrutiny under Daubert and was inadmissible.

Holdings

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting testimony concerning general behavioral characteristics of alleged child-sexual-abuse victims when the testimony was based on the expert's professional experience and did not rely on a novel scientific technique or special scientific model.
2. The expert testimony was not improperly bolstering because it addressed a class of victims generally rather than the particular victim, and it had probative value in rehabilitating the victim after cross-examination concerning delayed reporting and inconsistencies.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert by admitting expert testimony about general behavioral characteristics of child-sexual-abuse victims.
2. Whether the expert testimony improperly bolstered the victim's credibility, failed to assist the trier of fact, or was more prejudicial than probative.

Disposition

affirmed