United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-1132
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* District of South Dakota.
Brian Dion Roach, *
* [PUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: June 17, 2011
Filed: July 14, 2011
___________
Before COLLOTON and BENTON, Circuit Judges, and KOPF,1 District Judge.
___________
PER CURIAM.
A jury found Brian Roach guilty of aggravated sexual abuse of a child in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c) and 2246(2)(D). Roach appeals, arguing that the
district court2 improperly admitted expert witness testimony. We affirm.
1
The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Court for the
District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.
2
The Honorable Roberto Antonio Lange, United States District Judge for the
District of South Dakota.
Roach’s sole issue on appeal is that the district court abused its discretion when
it allowed Dr. Edward Mailloux to describe to the jury the emotional and behavioral
characteristics often observed in sexually abused children. The court reviews the
district court’s decision to admit expert testimony for abuse of discretion, according
it substantial deference. United States v. Bailey, 571 F.3d 791, 803 (8th Cir. 2009).
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides that “a witness qualified as an expert by
knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” may testify to specialized
knowledge that will “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine
a fact in issue.” In the context of child sexual abuse cases, we have held that a
qualified expert can inform the jury of characteristics in sexually abused children.
United States v. Whitted, 11 F.3d 782, 785 (8th Cir. 1993).
Roach argues that Dr. Mailloux was not qualified to testify about the emotional
and behavioral characteristics of sexually abused children because he lacked formal
education or training in child psychology and child psychiatry; rather, his knowledge
of “child abuse pediatrics” was derived solely from on-the-job observations and
attendance at conferences and seminars. Roach also argues that the government
failed to establish a proper foundation at trial to support the reliability of Dr.
Mailloux’s testimony. We find Roach’s arguments to be without merit. Rule 702
does not rank academic training over demonstrated practical experience. United
States v. Anderson, 446 F.3d 870, 875 (8th Cir. 2006); Fox v. Dannenberg, 906 F.2d
1253, 1256 (8th Cir. 1990). Dr. Mailloux is a board-certified pediatrician who has
served as Medical Director for Child’s Voice, a child abuse evaluation center in Sioux
Falls, South Dakota, since 2003. He has regularly examined and evaluated sexually
abused children over the past seven years. At trial, Dr. Mailloux testified that in 2010
alone, he personally examined approximately 200 children following allegations of
sexual abuse. We conclude there was a sufficient basis for the district court’s
conclusion that Dr. Mailloux was qualified to testify about the general characteristics
of sexually abused children.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
-2-