Opinion ID: 75691
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Exclusion of Oliveros's Expert Witness

Text: 25 To prove that S-Visa's were still available and that Casanova would have faced an indefinite detention but for the FBI's intervention on his behalf, Oliveros wanted to call an attorney who specialized in immigration cases to testify as an expert witness about immigration law. The district court refused to allow the attorney to testify, explaining that the extent of Casanova's benefits had been fully explored and that neither the FBI nor Casanova believed S-Visas were an option. Oliveros contends that this ruling was reversible error, arguing that the expert witness' testimony was relevant to show the extent of Casanova's bias. 26 The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the attorney's testimony to the extent that it was directed at establishing whether S-Visas were available in 1999 and what the statutory prescribed immigration procedure was for Cuban nationals. Domestic law is properly considered and determined by the court whose function it is to instruct the jury on the law; domestic law is not to be presented through testimony and argued to the jury as a question of fact. See 2A Charles Alan Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure §432 (3d ed. 2000); cf. Fed. R. Crim. P. 26.1 (concerning foreign law); United States v. McClain, 593 F.2d 658, 669-670 (5th Cir. 1979) (reaffirming that the proper procedure is for the judge rather than the jury to determine questions of foreign law). In order to establish that the law still provided for S-Visas and to establish the legal process and consequences that Oliveros would have faced without intervention after the prescribed 90-day detention period had run, Oliveros should have presented the matter (including the expert witness opinions, if any, that might have been permissible) to the district court and asked the court to instruct the jury on the law. He did not do that. 27 Oliveros proffered that his immigration-law expert also would have testified that given his own experience representing clients before INS review boards, under the statutorily prescribed procedure, Casanova as an aggravated felon likely would have faced a lengthy detention- in his opinion years of detention- much longer than the ninety days that Agent Gruber and Casanova testified they believed he would have faced. Assuming that this would have been a proper subject for expert testimony, we still conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony. See United States v. Sheffield, 992 F.2d 1164, 1167 (11th Cir. 1993) (abuse of discretion standard). 28 Oliveros argues that the proffered expert testimony is relevant to the issue of Casanova's bias, because it shows the extent of the benefit he actually received for cooperating and testifying. When it comes to a witness' motive to lie, however, what counts is not the actual extent of the benefit the witness has received or will receive, but the witness' belief about what he is getting. To show greater bias, Oliveros must also show that Casanova knew that he faced more severe detention than he admitted. The bias of a witness is a subjective fact influenced by that witness' beliefs about the benefit he will receive if he testifies in a particular way and the value of it to him, which is measured by what he thinks will happen if he does not receive the benefit. A witness cannot be motivated to lie by something which the witness does not think will happen. The absolute truth about what Casanova received from the government and its value does not matter; what Casanova believed about it does. 29 The proffered expert opinion testimony about the full extent of the detention Casanova would have faced but for the FBI's intervention on his behalf does not show that Casanova knew it. Oliveros argues that the reality about the full benefit of what Casanova received is evidence from which it could be inferred that he knew that reality. In other words, the argument is that the fact Casanova actually faced years of detention (if he did) instead of 90 days is evidence he knew he did. That might be a persuasive argument in some contexts, but not in the particular area of immigration law involved in this case, an area in which the law is unsettled, complex, and confusing. The fact that Oliveros felt compelled to offer expert opinion on how the law operated, instead of asking the court to take judicial notice and instruct the jury accordingly, is an indication that there is no basis for assuming that Casanova or Agent Gruber should have known what Oliveros apparently thought the district court judge did not. Another indication of the same thing is the fact that Oliveros' proffered expert opinion has since been contradicted in substantial part by the Supreme Court. 6 We do not think it reasonable to infer or assume that a confidential informant and his law enforcement handler knew more about the details of a particular area of immigration law than does the district court and the immigration law expert witness proffered by the defense in this case.