02-1294 U.S. v. Young

Listen to this article

“The government did not offer Dr. Burgess as an expert on whether or not Young abused Patrick, but rather, as an expert on how victims such as Patrick typically respond to such abuse. Furthermore, there is no legal authority supporting the proposition that Dr. Burgess must interview Patrick before forming her expert opinion. Young’s final two arguments are as futile as the first. Next, he claims that Dr. Burgess’ methodology was based upon ‘anecdotal’ evidence of other battered women; and finally, he argues that her methodology was unsound because she did not interview Patrick’s friends and family. As for ‘anecdotal’ evidence, Dr. Burgess is a highly qualified psychiatric mental health nurse with over forty years of experience. She specializes in crime victims and has published well over 100 scholarly articles and other writings on forensic nursing, rape, and domestic violence. Her work is generally accepted in the mental health profession. Even Young’s own expert agreed with Dr. Burgess that abuse victims often recant their statements to protect their abusers. Dr. Burgess’ background makes it clear that she based her opinion in this case on her extensive nursing experience as well as her academic research on several hundred battered women. See Allen, 269 F.3d at 846 (relying, in part, on experience of police officer to affirm admission of expert testimony). Furthermore, Dr. Burgess reached her opinion after conducting a thorough and full examination of the facts in this case. We noted above the substantial evidence Dr. Burgess reviewed in forming her opinion, including police and medical reports as well as communications between Patrick and Young. See id. (noting expert’s reliance on police reports). And, lest we forget, Dr. Burgess also spent over an hour interviewing Patrick personally. To assert that Dr. Burgess’ opinion was based on ‘anecdotal’ evidence is patently inaccurate. That Dr. Burgess did not also interview Patrick’s friends and family is of no concern; it seems unlikely that they would disprove the abuse Young dealt out to Patrick for over a decade. Finally, given Patrick’s recantation at trial, we find that Dr. Burgess’ expert opinion was helpful to the jury in determining how to credit that testimony. We see no reason to disagree with the First Circuit’s conclusion in Alzanki that Dr. Burgess’ testimony is both reliable and helpful in a case such as this one. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert testimony of Dr. Burgess.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Pallmeyer, J., Bauer, J.