Summary
The Tenth Circuit affirmed Dale L. Adams's conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The court held that the district court properly excluded psychological evidence concerning the credibility of Adams's confessions because the disclosure was untimely and the evidence did not sufficiently assist the jury. The court also rejected Adams's facial Commerce Clause challenge to § 922(g)(1), relying on circuit precedent.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Adams made an adequate offer of proof to preserve his challenge to the exclusion of the psychologist's testimony.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding the psychologist's report because it was disclosed untimely.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding psychological expert testimony offered to support the credibility of Adams's recantation and explanation for his confessions.
- Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), on its face, exceeds Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.
Holdings
- A proponent of excluded testimony must describe the evidence and what it tends to show and identify the grounds for admitting it; Adams's counsel made an inadequate offer of proof, but the court granted supplementation of the appellate record because the district judge had referred to the report and the government did not oppose supplementation.
- The district court acted within its discretion in excluding the psychological report based on its unexplained disclosure three days before trial, more than a month after the discovery deadline.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the psychologist's report because it primarily vouched for the credibility of Adams's account and did not assist the jury in a manner permitted by Rule 702.
- Adams's facial challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) was foreclosed by circuit precedent holding that the statute is within Congress's Commerce Clause power.
Key quotations
“In order to qualify as an adequate offer of proof, the proponent must, first, describe the evidence and what it tends to show and, second, identify the grounds for admitting the evidence.” (¶ 7)
“expert testimony which does nothing but vouch for the credibility of another witness encroaches upon the jury's vital and exclusive function to make credibility determinations” (¶ 28)
“The offered testimony does little more than "vouch for the credibility of another witness" and thereby "encroaches upon the jury's vital and exclusive function to make credibility determinations."” (¶ 30)
Factual background
Wichita police responding to a residential disturbance saw a black case containing an assault-style pistol in a vehicle occupied by Adams and another person. Adams claimed ownership of both the vehicle and firearm and, after receiving Miranda warnings, repeatedly told officers that he had purchased and possessed the weapon. At trial, he recanted and testified that he had falsely confessed to protect his girlfriend from incrimination. The defense sought to introduce a psychologist's report opining that Adams's cognitive functioning and dependent personality made his explanation plausible, but the report was disclosed only three days before trial.
Procedural history
A jury in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas found Adams guilty of possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony. The district court excluded a psychological report offered to support Adams's claim that his incriminating statements were false, both because of untimely disclosure and because the evidence was inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Adams was sentenced to 51 months' imprisonment and three years of supervised release, then appealed.