Christopher P. Girardot v. United States

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant's convictions for two counts of misdemeanor sexual abuse. The court held that the trial judge reasonably exercised her discretion under the three-part Dyas test in excluding proposed expert testimony concerning children's suggestibility and false reports of sexual abuse. The court emphasized that the constitutional right to present a defense does not eliminate applicable evidentiary rules or the trial court's discretion.

Holdings

1. The trial court properly conducted a case-specific analysis of all three Dyas criteria and did not err in excluding Dr. Robbins's testimony.
2. The trial court permissibly found that the basic propositions concerning leading, suggestive, repetitive, and otherwise encouraging questioning of children were matters of common sense and were not beyond the ken of the average layperson.
3. The trial court permissibly found that Dr. Robbins's education, work experience, and professional designations did not establish sufficient expertise in the fields relevant to the proposed testimony.
4. The trial court permissibly found that the pertinent scientific knowledge did not establish general acceptance of a methodology for determining the suggestibility of children ages eight to ten or of a specific methodology for questioning such children during forensic interviews.
5. Exclusion of the testimony did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to present a complete defense because the right to present evidence is not unlimited and must yield to valid, non-arbitrary evidentiary rules such as the Dyas test.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly applied all three prongs of the Dyas test in excluding the defense expert's testimony concerning children's suggestibility and false reports of sexual abuse.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding that the proposed testimony was not beyond the ken of the average layperson, that Dr. Robbins lacked sufficient specialized knowledge or experience, and that the pertinent scientific knowledge did not permit a reasonable opinion.
3. Whether exclusion of the expert testimony violated the defendant's constitutional right to present a complete defense.

Disposition

affirmed