US v. Thomas Daniels and the Debate Over Eyewitness Testimony

In a case that illustrates the district court’s discretion when considering the admission of eyewitness testimony, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently presided over an appeal of a case that began in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. This case, US v. Thomas Daniels, confirms the appropriate legal standard for admitting eyewitness testimony by addressing several arguments which, in combination, suggested the possibility of an unfair trial.

The appellant, Thomas Daniels, was convicted by a jury in February of 2020, including carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury under 18 U.S.C. §2119(2), brandishing and discharging a firearm in furtherance of the carjacking under §924(c)(1)(A)(ii) and (iii), and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon under §922(g)(1). On the night of the incident, Daniels entered a tow yard with a gun in his possession. He threatened two individuals with the gun, shooting them both before stealing their possessions and vehicle. Citing both the seriousness of the offense and Daniels’ prior criminal record, the district court sentenced Daniels to 485 months’ imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release—a sentence on the high end of the guideline range for the offense.

On appeal, Daniels raised two primary issues for the Eleventh Circuit’s consideration. First, Daniels argued that the district court erred in excluding a defense expert who was prepared to testify to the reliability of eyewitness identification. Along these same lines, Daniels alleged a similar error in the district court’s admission of the victim’s out-of-court identification testimony. Additionally, Daniels objected to the inclusion of a detective’s testimony which identified him in surveillance footage from the tow yard. Daniels also believed that certain photographs taken of him after the crime should have been suppressed. Considered collectively, these issues raise the broader question: Was Daniels deprived of a fair trial?

To address Daniels’ claim of error, the Eleventh Circuit first reviewed Daniels’ individual claims of error, clarifying the admissibility requirements for eyewitness testimony in the process. The Court reviewed Daniels’ claims, looking for clear error in the district court’s procedure and abuse of discretion regarding the admissibility of testimony. Citing United States v. Thevis as longstanding precedent, the Eleventh Circuit rejected Daniels’ first contention, noting that expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identification is generally disfavored, and therefore the district court did not err in excluding the expert. The Court also looked to the credibility of the testimony that Daniels called into question, finding that the identifying eyewitnesses were familiar with Daniels and able to reliably identify him. Further, the Court rejected Daniels’ argument about the photographs taken after the offense, holding that the existence of probable cause nullified any constitutional claims relating to unlawful seizure.

Finding that the district court did not err in the manner that Daniels suggested, the Eleventh Circuit also rejected Daniels’ broader argument that the errors, in combination, deprived him of a fair trial. Looking to the Court’s own ruling in United States v. Reeves ten years prior, the Court noted that a reversal is proper when the cumulative effect of non-reversible errors effectively denies the accused the constitutional right to a fair trial. Finding no such error here, the Court affirmed Daniels’ conviction.

US v. Thomas Daniels demonstrates the variability of admissibility through an analysis that highlights the interplay between the facts presented to the court and Daniels’ constitutional rights. Although the Eleventh Circuit spoke broadly to the issue of expert testimony addressing the reliability of eyewitness identification, the majority of issues were resolved on a fact-dependent analysis, illustrating the breadth of district court discretion in admitting eyewitness testimony. In instances where probable cause is coupled with evidence to suggest the reliability of certain testimony, the district court has the authority to admit such testimony.