United States v. Hankey
A plain-English summary from Criminal Defense Resources™, a free resource for pro per/pro se defendants and their families.
- Decided
- Citation
- 203 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2000)
What did the court decide?
In a drug case, the Ninth Circuit upheld letting a police gang expert testify, to show possible bias in a co-defendant's testimony, that members of affiliated gangs who testify against each other are beaten or killed. The court said the Daubert factors (testing, peer review, error rates) did not fit this kind of testimony, whose reliability depends on the expert's knowledge and experience, and that trial judges have broad discretion in how they test reliability. The trial judge had held a hearing, questioned the officer about the basis for his opinions, refused to let him testify about one witness's gang membership for lack of foundation, and gave the jury a limiting instruction.
Why does it matter?
Prosecutors often cite this case to support experience-based police experts. It also shows the limits: the judge still checked the foundation for each opinion and excluded the one that lacked it. Read it alongside United States v. Valencia-Lopez.
Where can I read the full opinion?
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Always read the full opinion and check whether later cases have limited or changed it. A summary can leave out important details.
Related rulings
- United States v. Valencia-Lopez
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael
- State v. Schoenhardt
- Krause v. County of Mohave