Opinion ID: 3216857
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Witnesses Admitted As Experts

Text: Teadt complains because the government asked, in the presence of the jury, that its witness, IRS Agent William Massi, be admitted as an expert for his testimony regarding his investigation of Defendants’ computers. Upon the government’s motion to admit him, defense counsel responded: “No objection.” The district court remained silent, and Massi’s testimony continued. In United States v. Johnson, 488 F.3d 690, 697 (6th Cir. 2007), we disapproved of the trial judge’s declaration before the jury that the testifying officer was to be considered an expert. We cited to the Eighth Circuit for the proposition that “[s]uch an offer and finding by the Court might influence the jury in its evaluation of the expert and the better procedure is to avoid an acknowledgement of the witnesses’ expertise by the Court.” Id. (quoting United States v. Bartley, 855 F.2d 547, 552 (8th Cir. 1988)). Unlike the judge in Johnson, however, the trial judge in the case at bar did not make a declaration regarding Massi’s qualification as an expert. Rather, he remained silent in the face of defense counsel’s acquiescence and Massi’s testimony continued. Indeed, counsel should refrain from asking the court to approve a witness as an expert in the presence of the jury. See id. And in the absence of ruling on an objection, the court 17 Case Nos. 14-3995/14-4124/14-4125/15-3014/15-3015, United States v. Teadt, et al. should not, in the presence of the jury, make a determination as to whether a witness is qualified as an expert. Id. at 698 (citing ABA Civil Trial Practice Standard 17 (Feb. 1998)); see also United States v. Trepanier, 576 F. App’x 531, 536 (6th Cir. 2014). In any event, plain error has not occurred. Subsequent to the events described above, Teadt’s attorney moved the court, in the presence of the jury, to designate Richard Green, Defendants’ computer witness, as an expert. The government stated that it had no objection and, just he had done previously, the trial judge remained silent. Any implicit bias created by the trial court’s acceptance of Massi as an expert was neutralized by its acceptance of Green as a defense expert on the same subject matter.