The Court of Appeals, in this unpublished opinion, upheld the trial courts determination of a “gang expert” as an expert under Evidence Rule 702. What’s interesting about this otherwise long and tedious opinion is the comment by the Appellate Court that if the defense had shown that the expert opinion was nothing but common knowledge among the public then the expert would loose the expert label and their testimony would suffer the same restrictions that common lay witnesses suffer.
The key prerequisites for admission of expert testimony under ER 702 are a qualified witness and helpful testimony for the trier of fact.[24] Pierce fails to direct us to anything in the record showing that Ringer’s expert gang information is common knowledge among the general public. In essence, Pierce is arguing that evidence of close family ties and other justifications for individuals not wanting to cooperate with the police could have substituted for the gang evidence in explaining motivation and the witnesses’ actions, including their reluctance to come forward and to testify. This argument, however, relates more to relevancy and prejudice than it does to whether Ringer’s testimony could have been helpful to the jury, which was composed of members of the general public at large, despite Pierce’s acquaintances’ having some grasp of gang-related terminology and gang attributes. Thus, this argument also fails.
Rule of Pierce – This unpublished opinion stands for the idea that showing if you can show common experience you can take away the expert nature of the State’s expert.
State v. Kai Tremaine Pierce, Division II of the Washington State Court of Appeals, UNPUBLISHED OPINION, No. 39348-4-II, November 8, 2011.