Opinion ID: 159991
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ed Rosenthal

Text: At the hearing on the government’s motion to exclude Mr. Rosenthal’s testimony, defense counsel made a lengthy proffer regarding Mr. Rosenthal’s qualifications and the subject matter of his testimony. In essence, Mr. Rosenthal would have testified “about the quantity and quality of marijuana plants which distinguishes personal use from commercial cultivation” and “the anticipated -22- yield of the marijuana seized from [Mr. Allerheiligen’s] property.” App. vol. II, at 110 (Defendant’s Witness List). Mr. Rosenthal proffered similar testimony in United States v. Kelley , 6 F. Supp.2d 1168, 1179-85 (D. Kan. 1998), which the court excluded. In Kelley , the court’s decision to exclude the testimony was based on its finding that he was not qualified to testify on the issues of yield, intent, general practices of outdoor marijuana growers, and processing and use of marijuana in Kansas. See id. at 1184-85. The decision in Kelley was based in part on transcripts of Mr. Rosenthal’s testimony in State v. Hood and United States v. Wyman & Hadley , D. Kan. No. 94-40038-01/02-RDR. In Hood the court characterized Mr. Rosenthal’s testimony as a “serious disappointment” and “ideologically driven to the point where [the court thought Mr. Rosenthal] had no objectivity at all.” Kelley , 6 F. Supp.2d at 1183-84 (quoting Trans. Aug. 20, 1993, p.171). Similarly, in Wyman and Hadley the court expressed regret over allowing Mr. Rosenthal to testify. Specifically, Judge Rogers voiced concern over Mr. Rosenthal’s qualifications and referred to his work as “almost voodoo research.” Id. at 1184 (quoting Trans. January 27, 1995, at 98-100). Here, the district court similarly “observe[d] several areas where [Mr.] Rosenthal’s purported testimony extend[ed] beyond his demonstrated areas of -23- specialized knowledge.” App. vol. III, at 130. In excluding Mr. Rosenthal’s testimony, the court explained: Even given the additional substantial information regarding [Mr.] Rosenthal provided to this court by the parties, the fact that [Mr.] Rosenthal writes books on marijuana growing and regularly writes a popular advice column for High Times magazine does not tell the court anything about the scientific reliability of his opinions expressed therein. There is no evidence that any of [Mr.] Rosenthal’s writings on marijuana have been recognized as a valid research effort or reference book in the field of botany. Nor is there anything of record that would lead this court to believe that it should rely on readers of High Times magazine or others having an interest in growing marijuana as a valid indicator of reliability. Based upon the court’s opinion in Kelley , the transcript from Wyman and Hadley and the affidavit of Dr. Mahmoud A. ElSohly, the Director of the Marijuana Project at the University of Mississippi since 1980, the court finds that [Mr.] Rosenthal’s qualifications are largely a matter provable only through his own opinion. He lacks any academic background, formal education or training, and experience that would qualify him as an expert on the subject of growing, harvesting, and processing of marijuana. His unique exposure to these topics is limited to his self-directed efforts at reading reference works, talking with some researchers and growers, and then summarizing the work of others in to popular “how-to” guides. Id. at 130-31. The district court undertook a careful and thorough review of Mr. Rosenthal’s qualifications and proffered testimony. In light of the “considerable leeway” we give trial judges “in deciding in a particular case how to go about determining whether particular expert testimony is reliable,” we conclude the court’s decision to exclude Mr. Rosenthal’s testimony was not an abuse of -24- discretion. Kumho Tire , 526 U.S. at 152; see, e.g. , Taylor v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. , 130 F.3d 1395, 1397 (10th Cir. 1997) (affirming district court’s exclusion of expert testimony where, although the expert “was qualified generally in materials failure, particularly metals,” the court found the expert was not qualified to testify as to the critical issue of whether “the tire failure in [the] case was the result of a manufacturing defect”); Broadcort Capital Corp. v. Summa Med. Corp. , 972 F.2d 1183, 1195 (10th Cir. 1992) (concluding exclusion of expert testimony was not an abuse of discretion where “[t]he district court found that [the expert’s] general experience and education did not qualify [him] as an expert in the securities area.”); United States v. Chang , 207 F.3d 1169, 1173 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding “[i]t was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to determine that [the proffered expert’s] ‘practical experience in international finance’ did not amount to practical experience determining whether a particular security is counterfeit, the fact at issue in th[e] case.”).