Appeals panel hears challenges to expert testimony, judges role as "thirteenth juror," verdict form and phone evidence in Gavin Clark case

Drew Justice, counsel for appellant Gavin Clark, told a three-judge appellate panel that the trial judge repeatedly "refus[ed] to take a stand, refus[ed] to rule on the relevant issues, and ultimately pass[ed] the buck on to others," and asked the court to reverse the convictions.

The argument focused on four principal issues raised on appeal: whether the trial court abused its gatekeeping role for expert medical testimony (the McDaniel issue), whether the judge acted properly as the so-called thirteenth juror weighing the evidence, whether the written verdict form produced an ambiguous or internally inconsistent verdict, and whether the seizure and use of cell-phone data was supported by a valid search-warrant affidavit or was harmless error.

The McDaniel/hearing issue

Justice said the trial judge "was supposed to serve as gatekeeper" and that the court "basically passed the buck onto the experts" by refusing to conduct a collective McDaniel-style hearing before trial and by admitting each expert in separate voir dire proceedings. He argued the separate, piecemeal hearings prevented the judge from seeing and resolving direct conflicts among the witnessesfor example, testimony suggesting both that a single blow can produce multiple…