Skip to content

United States v. Rodgers, 85 Fed.Appx. 483 (6th Cir. 2004)

Case (cite)
United States v. Rodgers, 85 Fed.Appx. 483 (6th Cir. 2004)
Type of proceeding
Type of claim
Type of claim (second claim)
Expert evidence ruling reversing or affirming on appeal:
What was the ruling?
Correct to Admit
Type of evidence at issue:
Firearms identification
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
Criminalist Franks
Summary of reasons for ruling
"Although the government did not lay a substantial foundation regarding the relevance and reliability of criminalist Franks's testimony about the ballistics comparison, we nonetheless conclude that the district court did not commit plain error in admitting that testimony. Through criminalist Franks's testimony, the government provided evidence regarding Franks's qualifications, and identified the test that he performed to reach his conclusion. Rodgers had ample opportunity to discredit criminalist Franks's conclusion on cross-examination and through the presentation of contrary evidence. Additionally, even if the ballistics evidence is disregarded, the evidence against Rodgers is overwhelming."
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Second standard
Rule 702
Did lower court hold a hearing
Names of prosecution expert(s) two testified at hearing
Names of defense expert(s) who testified at hearing (or None).
Discussion of 2009 NAS Report (NAS2009)
Discussion of 2016 PCAST report (PCAST)
Discussion of error rates / reliability
Frye Ruling
Limiting testimony ruling
Language imposed by court to limit testimony
Ruling based in prior precedent / judicial notice
Daubert ruling emphasizing – which factors – (list 1-5)
Ruling on qualifications of expert
Ruling on 702(a) – the expert will help / assist the jury
Ruling on 702(b) – the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data
Ruling on 702(c) – the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods
Ruling on 702(d) – reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case


Court does not really provide any analysis. The judge just generally says that the expert “testified generally about his training and experience in processing physical evidence and testified that he performed a ‘firing pin comparison'” and that this was sufficient to not be clear error by the court despite not “provid[ing] a substantial foundation regarding the relevance and reliability of criminalist Frank’s testimony about the ballistic comparison.”