Opinion ID: 200085
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Diaz's Objection at Trial to the Expert Testimony

Text: 41 At trial, Diaz never raised a specific objection to the reliability of the experts' methodology under Daubert or Rule 702 as a basis for exclusion. In the two-page Pretrial Memorandum filed on the eve of trial, defense counsel made a general reference to the Daubert trilogy in giving notice of a possible challenge to the experts' qualifications: The only anticipated legal issue potential[ly] would be the qualification of the experts, so-called, under the standards of the Daubert Trilogy.... By its terms, that statement anticipates that any attack on the expert testimony would be limited to the witness's qualifications. 42 During the direct examination of Dorsey, defense counsel raised an objection, stating: Competency to render the opinion. And I didn't have a chance to cross-examine as to the complete elements of the fire scene investigation before I have had the opportunity. He can answer at some later point. In objecting to Haynes's testimony, counsel raised a one-word objection: Objection. Da[u]bert. The court overruled both these objections. 43 Lumping these pre-trial and trial objections together, Diaz argues that he adequately apprised the court that he was seeking an opportunity to make an inquiry outside the presence of the jury challenging not only the experts' qualifications, but also the validity and reliability of the methodology underlying the experts' testimony. We disagree. Daubert assigns to the district court the function of evaluating the proffered expert testimony pursuant to the requirements of Rule 702. See 509 U.S. at 589-95. Rule 702 encompasses an array of expert witness issues, including the qualifications of the witness, the relevance of the proffered testimony, the adequacy of the facts or data underlying an opinion, the scientific reliability of the witness's methodology, and the reliability of the witness's application of that methodology to the facts. Fed.R.Evid. 702. Diaz's general references at trial to Daubert or competency, particularly in light of a pretrial challenge limited to the qualifications of the experts, was woefully deficient for the purpose of advising the district court that Diaz was raising a challenge to the reliability of the experts' methods and the application of those methods under Rule 702. 44 To the contrary, the court reasonably understood that Diaz's Rule 702 objections were addressed only to the experts' qualifications. 6 Indeed, in denying Diaz's Rule 29 motion for acquittal, the court observed that counsel had challenged their qualifications, which he's entitled to do, and the court has found that they were both well qualified to express the opinion. During arguments on the Rule 29 motion, defense counsel expressed a similar understanding of his Rule 702 objections: I submit to the court that both were qualified by the Court [and] accepted, in terms of their qualifications, by the Court as experts on origin and cause.... In renewing his Rule 29 motion at the March 16, 2001, chambers conference, Diaz's counsel stated that his renewed motion was for the same reasons that [he had] previously stated. He then stated, without elaboration: In addition, I make a motion under Rule 702 that the opinions of the two experts be excluded under the Daubert analysis as I have previously mentioned. This generic reference to the Daubert analysis could reasonably be understood to relate back to his attack on the experts' qualifications. Thus, Diaz's objections at trial failed to adequately preserve his substantive challenge to the reliability of the expert witness testimony, leaving him only with plain error review on that claim.