Lindsay Whitehurst
apnews.com
originally posted 20 June 24
The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the conviction of a California woman who said she did not know about a stash of methamphetamine hidden inside her car.
In a ruling that crossed the court’s ideological lines, the 6-3 majority opinion dismissed arguments that an expert witness for the prosecution had gone too far in describing the woman’s mindset when he said that most larger scale drug couriers are aware of what they are transporting.
“An opinion about most couriers is not an opinion about all couriers,” said Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the decision. He was joined by fellow conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett as well as liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
In a sharp dissent, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the ruling gives the government a “powerful new tool in its pocket.”
“Prosecutors can now put an expert on the stand — someone who apparently has the convenient ability to read minds — and let him hold forth on what ‘most’ people like the defendant think when they commit a legally proscribed act. Then, the government need do no more than urge the jury to find that the defendant is like ‘most’ people and convict,” he wrote. Joining him were the court’s other liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Here are some thoughts:
The recent Supreme Court case involving a woman convicted of drug trafficking highlights a complex issue surrounding expert testimony, particularly for psychologists. In this case, the prosecution's expert offered an opinion on the general awareness of large-scale drug couriers, which the defense argued unfairly portrayed the defendant's mindset. While the Court allowed the testimony, it leaves some psychologists concerned.
The potential for expert testimony to blur the lines between general patterns and specific defendant behavior is a worry. Psychologists strive to present nuanced assessments based on individual cases. This ruling might incentivize broader generalizations, which could risk prejudicing juries against defendants. It's crucial to find a balance between allowing experts to provide helpful insights and ensuring they don't overstep into determining a defendant's guilt.
Moving forward, psychologists offering expert testimony may need to tread carefully. They should ensure their testimony focuses on established psychological principles and avoids commenting on a specific defendant's knowledge or intent. This case underscores the importance of clear guidelines for expert witnesses to uphold the integrity of the justice system.
