Skip to content
Dan Markel— Case Archive
personpersonRobert Shawn YaoRobert Shawn YaoTPD forensic supervisor whose assumption-dependent bullet-path opinion favored a shooter near six feet tall; he acknowledged formal trajectory analysis was not possible.← All People
Expert witness

Robert Shawn Yao

Courtroom still of Robert Shawn Yao.

TPD forensic supervisor whose assumption-dependent bullet-path opinion favored a shooter near six feet tall; he acknowledged formal trajectory analysis was not possible.

AppearedGarcia–Magbanua
91 lines·12 proceedings·6 mentions

About

Served as a Tallahassee Police Department forensic supervisor and testified about crime-scene analysis and bullet-path documentation. On Day 1, he described his training and reviewed materials, while distinguishing bullet-path documentation from a trajectory analysis. After the defense challenged notice of his anticipated opinion, the court allowed a post-court deposition and recall the following day.

On Day 2, Yao was qualified as an expert in crime-scene analysis and bullet-path documentation. Based on stated assumptions about Markel's position, the door, and the shooter's normal stance, he testified that the window-hole and injury evidence was more consistent with a taller shooter. He identified State's Exhibit 8 as the window bullet hole discussed and said the partial hole did not allow a full trajectory analysis.

Cross-examination addressed the single known physical point, the assumed second point, and the effect of changing variables. Yao agreed that incomplete physical information and assumptions prevented complete certainty, and he said stippling-distance questions belonged to a firearms examiner. On redirect, he clarified that ordinary shooting posture could include straight or slightly bent arms; the court denied immediate recross while allowing the defense to recall him during its case.

Trial Record (12)

GMGarcia–MagbanuaSep 26, 2019 – Oct 11, 2019Called by prosecution

Testified as a forensic supervisor about bullet-path documentation and a conditional opinion that the evidence was more consistent with a taller shooter. Cross-examination focused on the assumptions and limits of that opinion.

Day 1

DirectRobert Shawn Yao - DirectRobert Shawn YaoGeorgia Cappleman2highlights15lines spoken

Summary

Yao's conditional bullet-path opinion favoring a taller shooter prompted a disclosure objection; the court ordered a defense deposition before recalling him.

Highlights (2)

Quote“Using those assumptions, based upon the evidence that's present and what I was able to see, the injury and the hole in the window is more consistent with was somebody of a taller stature being six foot or higher -- or close to six foot rather than somebody being short.”— Robert Shawn YaoYao stated the conditional conclusion that prompted the disclosure dispute and proffer.Open in transcript →
objectionDefense counsel objected at sidebar, asserting that Yao's anticipated height-related opinion had changed from his deposition testimony without adequate notice.Open in transcript →

Day 2

DirectRobert Shawn Yao - DirectRobert Shawn YaoGeorgia Cappleman2highlights19lines spoken

Summary

Yao gave a conditional expert opinion that the bullet-path evidence was more consistent with a taller shooter; the court overruled a speculation objection.

Highlights (2)

Quote“In looking at the crime scene report and the report from the medical examiner, and referring to the questions in the hypotheticals posed by defense counsel during the deposition, it was my opinion that, using those assumptions, that it was more consistent with a taller shooter rather than a shorter shooter”— Robert Shawn YaoStates the conditional opinion at issue in the resumed direct examination.Open in transcript →Watch this moment ▶
testimony highlightYao explained that the opinion assumed Markel was seated upright, the car door was closed, and the shooter stood near the doorway in a normal shooting stance.Open in transcript →Watch this moment ▶
CrossRobert Shawn Yao - CrossRobert Shawn YaoSaam Zangeneh2highlights33lines spoken

Summary

Yao agreed the physical evidence alone did not permit a trajectory analysis and that changes to the assumed shooting conditions could affect his opinion.

Highlights (2)

testimony highlightYao agreed that the physical evidence supplied only one fixed point and did not permit a trajectory analysis; he placed the shooter generally near the driver's-side door between the A- and B-pillars.Open in transcript →Watch this moment ▶
Quote“what I can say is there is no ability to doa trajectory analysis based solely upon the physical evidence as found at the scene because it's only a singular hole without a connecting point.”— Robert Shawn YaoYao limited what the physical evidence alone could establish.Open in transcript →Watch this moment ▶
CrossRobert Shawn Yao - CrossRobert Shawn YaoChristopher DeCoste2highlights18lines spoken

Summary

Yao said his taller-shooter opinion relied on assumptions and could not be stated with 100 percent certainty.

Highlights (2)

Quote“It's more consistent with it being a taller shooter rather than a shorter one.”— Robert Shawn YaoYao restated the limited conclusion of his opinion rather than claiming certainty.Open in transcript →Watch this moment ▶
RedirectRobert Shawn Yao - RedirectRobert Shawn YaoGeorgia Cappleman2highlights6lines spoken

Summary

Yao said his conditional taller-shooter opinion allowed straight or slightly bent arms and that an alternative shooting stance would decrease accuracy.

Highlights (2)

Day 3

Day 10