Summary
This Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision affirms the conviction of Brett Stormer for bank robbery and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. The central issue on appeal was whether the district court properly admitted lay opinion testimony from four police officers identifying Stormer as the robber depicted in bank surveillance photographs under Federal Rules of Evidence 701 and 403. The appellate court held that the officers' familiarity with the defendant made their identification testimony helpful to the jury despite poor photo quality and the defendant's attempt to alter his appearance. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the testimony, noting that the trial court employed sufficient procedural safeguards to minimize prejudice during cross-examination.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 by admitting lay opinion testimony from four police officers identifying Stormer in bank surveillance photographs.
- Whether the testimony should nevertheless have been excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and limitations on cross-examination.
Holdings
- Lay opinion testimony identifying a defendant in surveillance photographs is admissible under Rule 701 when it is rationally based on the witness's perception and helpful to the jury, including when the witness's familiarity with the defendant makes the witness more likely to identify the defendant correctly than the jury.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 403 by admitting the police officers' identification testimony despite limitations on cross-examination concerning the circumstances of Stormer's resignation from the police force.
Key quotations
“a lay witness may testify regarding the identity of a person depicted in a surveillance photograph 'if there is some basis for concluding that the witness is more likely to correctly identify the defendant from the photograph than is the jury.'” (938 F.2d at 761)
“Defendants chose to limit cross-examination, and we see no reason to insulate them from the natural consequences of that choice.” (938 F.2d at 763)
Factual background
A Michigan City, Indiana bank was robbed by a masked man carrying a semiautomatic weapon, and surveillance cameras recorded the robbery. Brett Stormer was identified as the robber in the surveillance photographs and was arrested in Florida; a search incident to arrest found clothing and a blue duffel bag similar to items shown in the photographs. At trial, two tellers, three friends, and four police officers identified Stormer as the person depicted in the photographs.
Procedural history
A jury in the district court convicted Stormer on one count of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d) and one count of carrying a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Before trial, the district court denied Stormer's motion in limine after conducting an examination of the police witnesses outside the jury's presence and imposed precautions limiting disclosure of potentially prejudicial information. The court affirmed the convictions and evidentiary ruling.