United States v. Billy Young

Good Law
623 F. App'x 863
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 19, 201514-10160California1,458 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Billy Charley Young appeals his conviction on four counts of sexually abusing his minor daughter and stepdaughters. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. The Expert Testimony

Young first argues that the district court erred in admitting the expert testimony of Carli Moncher, a forensic interviewer at the Flagstaff Medical Center’s Safe Child Center. Young argues that the judge failed to perform the gatekeeping function required under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-93 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence because he did not make express findings that Moncher’s testimony was relevant and reliable; that Moncher was not qualified to testify under Rule 702; and that the prejudicial impact of her testimony outweighed the probative value, making it inadmissible under Rule 403.

Young did not raise these issues before trial. In a pretrial hearing, the district court discussed the subjects of Moncher’s testimony, probing its relevance. Before Moncher testified, the district court reminded the parties that Moncher could not testify about syndromes unless they were recognized in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.