Opinion ID: 4505371
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Request for Expert Witness

Text: Nixon requested funds under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1), which provides that a defendant may obtain a court-appointed expert if: (1) the services are necessary to mount a plausible defense; and (2) without such authorization, the defendant’s case would be prejudiced. United States v. Gilmore, 282 F.3d 398, 406 (6th Cir. 2002). We review the district court’s denial of a request for expert services for an abuse of discretion. Id. Nixon sought funds for an expert to review the accuracy of the cell-site and location data analysis in the affidavit. The Government argues that Nixon requested a Franks hearing only on the false inference that Nixon and Gregory were the same person and not on the accuracy of the data, where an expert would be relevant. It posits that Nixon’s request was appropriately denied because a probable cause determination is evaluated based only on the contents within the four -4- No. 19-3262, United States v. Nixon corners of the affidavit. The record shows, however, that Nixon also requested funds for an expert to review the accuracy of the affidavit regarding cell-site and location data. As Nixon pointed out in his motion to suppress, “[t]he affidavit alleges a three (3) mile radius and states there was only one other residence located in the area identified as a result of the five days of collected geolocation data from the cellular telephone.” So Nixon claimed to be “in need of an expert witness to review this information to determine if the allegations . . . are scientifically accurate.” Nevertheless, Nixon fails to demonstrate a need for such an expert to mount his defense. He relies on the complexity of analyzing the historical cell-site and location data, but does not show how his ultimate points of contention would require an expert. For example, he takes issue with the factual allegation that only one other residence was located within the three-mile radius that contained Nixon’s home. The affidavit provided an explanation of the area, including the longitudinal and latitudinal points from which Nixon could ascertain the number of residences in the area. Moreover, Nixon does not contest the reliability or veracity of the Verizon records handed over to law enforcement or the use of historical cell-site and location data for ascertaining the target device’s location. Nixon primarily focuses on the need for an expert to respond because the Government presented an expert. But without more specificity to the cell-site and location data challenges and the necessity for an expert, we are unable to conclude that the district court’s decision to deny Nixon funds for an expert rose to an abuse of discretion.