State of Iowa v. Pat Grant Kepner

Boone, Iowa criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with indecent exposure.



In spring 2022, two women-K.W. and E.P.-made two separate reports to law enforcement. Each woman reported that a man whom she did not know had just exposed himself to her in a retail parking lot. This case is about those women's experiences, the investigations and trial that followed, and (especially) the women's identifications of Pat Kepner as the man they saw in the parking lots. We start with K.W.'s experience.

Eyewitness identification testimony is a complicated topic. On the one hand, an eyewitness's identification can provide powerful evidence for the prosecution. Indeed, some say that "there is almost nothing more convincing [to a jury] than a live human being who takes the stand, points a finger at the defendant, and says 'That's the one!'" Watkins v. Sowders, 449 U.S. 341, 352 (1981) (Brennan, J., dissenting) (quoting Elizabeth F. Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony 19 (1979)). On the other hand, our court has acknowledged that "mistaken eyewitness identification" is "the primary cause for the conviction of innocent people in our criminal justice system." State v. Folkerts, 703 N.W.2d 761, 765 (Iowa 2005). Indeed, "DNA exoneration cases show the convictions of approximately seventy-five percent of innocent persons involved mistaken eyewitness identification." Id. (citing Gary L. Wells, Eyewitness Identification Evidence: Science and Reform, The Champion, Apr. 2005, at 12).



This mixture of potency and potential for error has led to much worry among judges. Some courts have even prohibited some eyewitness identification testimony. Many other courts have permitted criminal defendants to present expert testimony to educate jurors about the problems that can attend eyewitness identifications.



In this case, a criminal defendant named Pat Kepner offered that sort of expert testimony at trial. The district court excluded the testimony. Kepner was convicted. Now, on appeal, Kepner contends that the court abused its discretion by declining to admit the expert testimony.

Reversed and remanded.