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

Robert Shawn Yao, a Tallahassee Police Department forensic supervisor, testified about crime-scene analysis and bullet-path documentation. During his initial appearance, he distinguished documenting a bullet path from performing a full trajectory analysis. After the defense challenged notice of his anticipated opinion, the court allowed a deposition before he was recalled the following day.

After being qualified as an expert in crime-scene analysis and bullet-path documentation, he discussed the partial bullet hole in the window and the related injury evidence. Based on stated assumptions about the victim's position, the door, and a normal shooting stance, he gave a conditional opinion that the evidence was more consistent with a taller shooter.

Cross-examination focused on the limited physical points available and the assumptions required for that opinion. He agreed that the partial hole did not permit a full trajectory analysis, that changing the assumed conditions could change the result, and that the conclusion was not completely certain. On redirect, he clarified that the normal shooting stance underlying his opinion could include straight or slightly bent arms.

Trial Record (12)

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

Robert Shawn Yao testified about bullet-path documentation and offered a conditional opinion that the evidence was more consistent with a taller shooter. Cross-examination examined the assumptions and physical-evidence limits underlying 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