This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Duane and Carolee Recob had not been seen by their grandchildren since the last weekend of 2003. The grandchildren went to the Recob home and asked the police to do a welfare check. The officers found both Recobs dead, their bodies decomposed and mummified. Duane was found in a recliner in the living room and Carolee was found lying on her side in bed, covered by a blanket. Recobs' son, D, was charged with two counts of first-degree intentional homicide. The medical examiner testified that the condition of the bodies made it impossible to determine a specific cause for the simultaneous death of the Recobs. The medical examiner's opinion was that the deaths were homicides caused by some form of asphyxial type injury 'or some other type of injury not detected at the time of the autopsy.' The medical examiner replied that it was possible for the Recobs to have had simultaneous cardiac arrhythmia. However, he believed the chance of such an event to be so extremely rare that it was not a consideration. The authorities contacted Supervisory Special Agent Mark Safarik of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU) to conduct a 'death scene' analysis in an attempt to determine the cause of death. Safarik prepared a Criminal Investigative Analysis--Equivocal Death report which was filed with the court. Defense counsel filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Safarik. D asserted the proposed testimony was not relevant and it was inadmissible as expert testimony because 'there is no scientific knowledge that formed the basis of [Safarik's] opinion.' The trial court denied the motion, finding that the testimony would assist the jury on the question of whether the Recobs' death was by natural causes or homicide. The court held that Safarik could give testimony based on the opinions of third parties. The court said D's complaint, that there were no statistics to support the agent's opinion, was for cross-examination. At trial, D moved to exclude any testimony from Safarik about his conversations with third parties regarding the probability of simultaneous death because Swope would not have the chance to cross-examine the third parties. D's counsel contended that he did not have access to the data the third parties relied upon. While acknowledging that an expert can rely upon information from others, D claimed that the rule is only applicable to what is common knowledge within a specialty and does not apply when the information is in private databases, and inaccessible to the public. The court denied the motion, ruling that D can expose the basis of Safarik's opinion during cross-examination. P has a bachelor's degree in human physiology, and a master's degree in criminal justice, and has been an agent for twenty-two years, and for eleven and one-half years has been assigned to the BAU within the FBI's critical incident response group; specifically, the unit that investigates homicides. He told the jury that he had analyzed more than 1000 crime scenes, including at least thirty crime scenes where there was an equivocal death--an undetermined cause of death. Some of the cases he has worked on were referred by international law enforcement agencies. During the course of his career, he has published articles in peer-reviewed journals and international criminology journals. As a member of the BAU, he has lectured on a variety of subjects to over 15,000 professionals. D said that he conducted a death analysis, not a crime scene analysis, at the request of the investigating officers and prepared a written report. He did not visit the Recobs' home, but reviewed photographs of the death scene and extensive investigative materials including the autopsy and toxicology protocols for both Recobs. He considered: the location of the death scene; the crime demographics of the geographic area; the ability to access the scene and the victims; the level of risk of violent crime to which the victims were exposed; the degree of control exercised over the victims and their movement within the scene; victimology information on Duane and Carolee; the absence of any identifiable injury and the relationship to manner of death; the sites within the scene where both victims were located and their positions; and the presence or absence of other activity at the scene. Safarik gave detailed testimony about all nine factors. He also related discussions he had with two sources outside of the FBI. First, he discussed simultaneous natural death with Nicholas Christakis, M.D., Ph.D., of Harvard. Dr. Christakis had studied 1,040,000 elderly couples who had died over a period of nine years. Safarik said Dr. Christakis was of the opinion that 'having two people die of natural death within a couple of hours is such a statistically small number as to be almost impossible.' Safarik also consulted with Richard Anderson, Chief of Mortality Statistics for the Center for Disease Control. Anderson shared the same opinion as Dr. Christakis. The 'likelihood of both of these people dying of natural causes is really so remotely small as to be almost impossible.' Safarik testified that it was his opinion considering everything together that the deaths of Carolee and Duane are most consistent and supported by this being a smothering, an asphyxiant, or smothering homicide.\The medical examiner testified and stated that he could not identify a specific cause of death. He told the jury that he considered both deaths to be homicides. He offered his 'opinion within a reasonable [degree of] medical certainty that they died from asphyxia caused by another person.' On cross-examination, he rejected the theory that the Recobs died from simultaneous cardiac arrhythmia, 'it would be extremely rare to have two people die at the same time.' D was convicted of both counts of intentional first-degree homicide. D appealed and renewed his original objections to Safarik's testimony.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.