morning runners matt campbell from the federal defenders of eastern washington and idaho on behalf of mr anus and i'd like to try to reserve three minutes for a bottle i'd like to primarily focus on the third issue that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of a so called pimp prostitute expert so if you had the you were given the opportunity to object at trial to specific items from that witness and some things you did object to and some things you did not object to if you had to pick though the one or two that you thought were the most prejudicial to you what would they b just to clarify you mean the most prejudicial information that came out i mean he testified at some length on a variety of subjects and i understand your overall your overarching objections but i'm asking  now some of it seems to me at worst harmless server if you had to point to the ones that you think are most prejudicial what would they be if i could step back for a moment just to make sure we're sort of on the same page i mean answering the question i think that primarily the concern or the argument that we would have is that the testimony that he offered was not helpful in that this was a relatively uncomplicated issue for the jury to understand so if it's not helpful what's the harm well the harm is that in essence detective steiger it's was allowed to testify to a lengthy description of him prostitute relationships and factors that are common to pimp prostitute relationships and events and what ended up happening i believe was that since none of that testimony was necessary it ended up amounting to in essence vouching where detective steiger's described a whole host of circumstances that occur between pimps and prostitutes and the jury was left to understand oh the alleged victims in this case alleged those types of events detective steiger says that's what happens so therefore well he must be telling the truth he gave a variety of different  some of which clearly had no relationship to the particular case and so which did for instance he talked about the difference between guerrilla pimps and finesse prims while the grill no one was claiming that this was a gorilla pimp situation right well i'm not sure that that's totally true there were some allegations in the record of threats to harm and i believe there was one allegation that one of the victims was essentially struck or had her head sort of forced into a part of the car so i think there were some allegations of guerrilla pimps but again my overall concern is that the testimony itself there was nothing that the jury couldn't understand alleged by the victims and any other witnesses the government had so there was no real how was being unnecessary prejudicial and i can fast when i looked at it after the fact wondered what he added to the mix but planning the case i assume the prosecutor thought there was a reason that was going to be important to present that testimony you were given the opportunity of ejector i don't know if you tried the case but whoever tried the case and there were objections and so it might have been unnecessary but an enormous number of things that happened in the courtroom turn out to be unnecessary that doesn't make any of them prejudicial so i'm so i'm still i think i'm focused on the same problem the judge ray coffins raised which is what was the harm well i think again the harm was in conjunction with the fact that there was no necessity to this testimony over the jury if you have to accept my premise that i don't see no necessity as being harmful and so so i need something more than that i again i think what this case essentially came down to and i recognize there were numerous witnesses on the government's side but it was in essence a sort of he said she said type of case and i recognize there were you know maybe he said she said she said or something like that but this was not a case for example and there were several cases cited by both the government and myself  where there was sort of a complex scheme that they needed to understand so the jury was fully capable of understanding the allegations made by the government it didn't need any testimony from an expert when the expert testimony came in i think that the import of it was he described a host of for lack of a better term factors or commonalities that often occur the jury was left with well this is what the witnesses say and this expert says sometimes this occurs between pimps and d seventy three of the trial transcript question is put to this expert how about when have you encountered situations when prostitutes are confronted with contact with law enforcement in your experience are they truthful with law enforcement the the defense counsel then made a not only objection but a continuing objection to that entire line of questioning but the court over ruled it and he the expert then goes on and says in essence they lie at first but eventually at least that many cases they come around which could well be viewed as a specific invasion of the jury's historic parag if to assess credibility credibility is uniquely reserved for the jury there betty nice circuit cases that say as much and so isn't that a case where there was specific prejudice well i think that's i think that's one certain example and i think in this gets to what i was should have got to earlier that we do believe there was not and i think if i well practice not to say yes to my question i agree and i should have gotten through it earlier made a culpa but this is what i mean by it ended up being sort of vouching and there were numerous instances of this where it seemed like the questioning was designed to simply get the expert say don't they sometimes not tell the truth that is correct because they were a series of questions between pages thirteen ninety five going on have you investigated parent no have you trained on it yes is that the type of thing that happens yes parents have an advantage over children yes where what the prosecution essentially did was talk about the facts of this case including the truth  just asked and got the witness to say yes that sounds like a prostitute relationship also mentioned earlier thirteen seventy nine are kids in foster care a target yes do pimps threaten with knives there was an allegation that a knife was pulled at one point we are thirteen and eighty one of course the answer was yes can threats against another girl become like threats against a family member at thirteen at thirteen eighty two yes so what we were left with with an expert who was otherwise on helpful was a situation where the expert becomes like a greek chorus to simply echo that the facts of this case sound like a prostitute relationship in addition to the truth question that your honor had it raised and my re on the other hand that there was no reference to the expert in the prosecutor's summation that's that is correct your honor i was reviewing that this morning and i can find no references to it and on the one hand one could say well that shows that they didn't really rely on it but i think on the other hand it underscores the fact that there was no real admissible purpose to this testimony so well admittedly one can say well they didn't rely on it too much in closing the jury had  heard it and it essentially became sort of a second closing argument given during the middle of testimony which i believe them he a case out of the second circuit talks about i'd like to reserve the right expert invaded prime's of the fact finder by vouching for one of the witnesses i do think it's important to note at the outset that the expert was not made privy to what any of the witnesses had said it makes it one might argue even worse because what he is being an ass and i don't know why in the world he was asked this question but in your experience are prostitutes assuming arguing that he does this is the only possible effect of that question is to say to the jury you see  justice the witnesses in this case the two victims who are those whose credibility is the issue in this case just as they initially lied and then told the truth so that's what prostitutes always do with law enforcement all i think that the point of the question was to get at the initial mistrust of law enforcement and i do think it came in a line of questions and there were any number of questions that pertained to mistrust of law enforcement and mistrust of authority in general  by these by these young people that pimps tend to prey upon and that they look for these types of vulnerable people who have this mistrust of authority and i think that was a part of a greater narrative but additionally i would note that when this expert was cross examined it neutralizes the error in that in so far as the error would be or the prejudice stemming from the error would be that he's saying these children are credible or children he didn't know these children improper prostitutes  credible he goes on and in response to a defense counsel's question just this if they say they can be incredible in other words it is absolutely possible that he was privy to situations where they were not credible let me assure one other question right after that the next line of questioning beginning at ten seventy five is a quick question have you encountered in your investigations instances of a parental figure parental figure or a parent acting as a trafficker of a child answer an actual parent no i have not but then notwithstanding his saying that he has no such that the he then on the next page question is there anything in your training experience that you think a parent trafficking their child would have an advantage of and with regard to any of the factors you've discussed in the trafficking world the defense counsel objection i think now the government does have to lay a foundation and i don't think they can't but the judge overrules that and then he goes on to say that so far as that relationship the bond between a parent and a child could be just as strong or stronger then just as a trafficker as a non parental so how could that possibly be a bit it didn't have a foundation the judge when even deal either pretrial or at trial with the objection that there was no foundation he says the only reason he can comment on this is basically from talking with some other law enforcement people that if that's methodology under seven no to anything goes  e and what he said this is directly in point with one of the issues that was contested in the case which was whether the defendant was in effect making use of his the parental privy to situations where parents where parents had had prostituted their children and i do think that that's fair to him to rely on able to rely on his training and experience but more more to the court's  point he certainly was privy to and gave extensive testimony about how the way in which these children are manipulated is not only through coercion and not only through supplying drugs and alcohol but through supplying necessities and that's how he spoke to specifically children who are homeless or in the foster care system children who are having their basic needs met by of him will stay with that pym and so his ability to be able to speak to someone who is meeting the basic needs of a child be the a parent or otherwise if they are providing for the needs of the child they are unable to exert control over that child and i think that's the point that was being met so the extent that that is this is sort of the point was made to me extent that that is common sense that every parent understands that possibility he's out of nothing except he's putting the imprimatur of law enforcement or that if on the other hand there was some legitimate addition then he would have to show experience the the testimony must be the product of quote reliable principles and methods with respect to this particular question that we're looking at what is the reliable principle and method that he used a lot he had no actual experience with this he's purporting to add something that the jury does not know of their own experience because otherwise he's an expert testimony is not admissible at all and what is it he's outing on the basis of some casual things that some of his colleagues told  honor i i don't know that i'm prepared to speak to and i i wasn't response of my answer in regard to seventy two i wasn't speaking question per question but in regard to the testimony as a whole this this person had more experience and had more detailed methodology in terms of training experience and his ability to apply it he testified as an expert thirty times in state court in thirteen different federal districts the court had a hearing about it in court issued a ruling about it and he had substantially more experience than was provided in previous cases that have been upheld for expert testimony and found to have met seven o two in this type of an m o situation in brooks and taylor by this court the defense asked for a correct and what happened was that the court held that the that the court would be better served to have these items in context and yes to ask for objections and there were some limited objections i think the court's done well to illustrate a few there were were specific objections were made and the second one was specifically related to bethen ology on its face and the judge forget it yes your honor just in regard to the one question about whether or not a parent could serve in this role and the experts said yes a parent could serve in this role and relied on his experience in terms of the ability of prostitutes you'll staying with someone because their basic needs are being met i do think that was fairly within the ambit of what he was qualified to testify to and then i would just briefly mention because i see my time has expired that in any event this was absolutely not prejudicial defendant every every bit of the testimony that was given by the victims in this case was heavily corroborated by other witnesses and that may be the case and you may ultimately prevail on prejudice but you know the problem that i see with this case is that the district court presiding over this trial  made a general ruling that given the nature of the charges in this case an expert could offer something that would be outside of the jury's experience and to the extent he's able to do that and the government can lay the appropriate foundation then that is potentially helpful to the jury but it's really hard for a trial judge to know exactly how far the government's going to go and i think that's why the district court indicated the fans that it can also make specific objections if the expert goes beyond the realm of his expertise for example or offer information that would under four three overly prejudicial given the nature and facts of the case but sometimes the government take that ruling to go too far and over try the case mean expert testify to all kinds of things some of which as that's rake up pointed out i don't think the government played be appropriate foundation for it and some of it i think under four or three i don't see how it's really relevant to the facts of the case and i think the prejudicial value would be high and so it just seems to me that the government needs to be cautious and trying these sort of cases all kinds of cases like drug trafficking cases the government sometimes is over tries and creates these sort of issues and then you know you come to the circuit and you have to rely on prejudice to prevail i understand i understand the court's point in your honor i would point i just briefly our our rule sixteen disclosure the government's rule sixteen disclosure and supplemental rule sixteen disclosure are contained in the excerpts of record a defendant did not renew any you in brief the government noted that the expert wasn't made privy to what the actual facts of the case and i suppose that's true in a pretrial posture but again i think that the problem here was that through the questioning that drake office gone over in some detail the government essentially got the expert to confirm the individual facts of this case so whether he knew them in advance or not he clearly testified to the jury that those facts were entirely consistent with  there was some discussion about reliable principles and methodology none were identified frankly they weren't really identified in in the real sixteen disclosures that the government is just mentioned and they weren't identified in court and even if some sort of methodology existed i think again the questions a judge or a compass highlighted that type of methodology or whatever the methodology was simply wouldn't exist for that type of change for credibility or for this  parent child relationship they just rake off as mentioned in regard to the rule sixteen disclosures that the government just mentioned i think at the important issue there is that the rule sixteen disclosures may have outlined the general parameters that detective steiger going to testify to and the defense objected to that to that those specific areas so the fact that the government stayed within those parameters at trial is really irrelevant since the defense had already objected to them in the objection had been overruled it was simply not reasonable to expect that the defense was going to continue to object to every question since that's what the defense had already done and had been told that that was not going to work i see i'm over