United States v. Stevens

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991 · Evidence

935 F.2d 1380 (3d Cir. 1991)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceEyewitness identification expert testimonyRule 404(b)Pretrial services confidentialityDue processFed. R. Evid. 404(b)reverse 404(b)Fed. R. Evid. 401

Facts

Smith and McCormack were robbed and Smith was sexually assaulted at gunpoint at Fort Dix, and both victims identified Stevens from a wanted board, a photo array, and a lineup. Stevens claimed the government improperly destroyed a saliva/semen sample that might have been exculpatory, that the wanted board identification procedure was suggestive, and that several evidentiary rulings undermined his misidentification defense. At trial he sought expert testimony from Dr. Penrod on several eyewitness-identification topics, including the weak correlation between witness confidence and accuracy, and he also sought to introduce testimony from Tyrone Mitchell, victim of a similar nearby armed robbery whose assailant Mitchell did not identify as Stevens. The district court excluded the confidence/accuracy testimony and the Mitchell evidence, but admitted testimony from Stevens's Pretrial Services Officer impeaching Stevens's father with a prior inconsistent statement.

Issue

Whether the district court erred in rejecting Stevens's due process challenges based on destruction of evidence and identification procedures, in admitting impeachment testimony from a Pretrial Services Officer, and in excluding both expert testimony on the weak confidence/accuracy correlation in eyewitness identifications and reverse 404(b) evidence concerning a similar crime committed by an unidentified third party. Also, whether any such evidentiary errors were harmless.

Rule

Potentially useful evidence that is lost or destroyed violates due process only upon a showing of governmental bad faith. Identification evidence is inadmissible only if the procedure was so impermissibly or unnecessarily suggestive as to create a very substantial likelihood of misidentification, with reliability assessed under the totality of the circumstances using the Biggers factors. Under Rule 702 and Downing, eyewitness-identification expert testimony must be reliable, must fit the facts of the case, and must be helpful rather than merely obvious or cumulative. A defendant may offer reverse 404(b) evidence if it tends to negate guilt and its probative value under Rules 401 and 402 is not substantially outweighed by Rule 403 concerns; because the defendant offers it exculpatorily, it need not show a signature crime or satisfy rigid similarity prerequisites.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal assault prosecution in Colorado Springs, agents collected a tiny blood smear from a jacket. A lab technician learned the sample was too small for DNA testing, used it all in a routine blood-typing test that proved inconclusive, and there is no evidence anyone believed the sample would exonerate Malik Turner when it was consumed.

If Turner moves to dismiss on due process grounds because the government destroyed potentially useful evidence, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not deny due process absent bad faith. Bad faith turns on the government's knowledge of the exculpatory value of the evidence at the time of destruction. Routine testing that consumes a small sample, without proof officials believed it would exonerate the defendant, is not enough.