Opinion ID: 1386491
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony of Forensic Chemists at Trial

Text: The district court held that the government's Notice of Expert Testimony Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, filed on March 28, 2006, met the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(G). Davis argues that the government failed to comply with Rule 16(a)(1)(G) because it did not provide the bases for the chemists' results, something clearly required after the 1993 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Also, Davis argues that the government was obligated to comply with the pre-trial discovery order. Rule 16(a)(1)(G) states: Expert witnesses.At the defendant's request, the government must give to the defendant a written summary of any testimony that the government intends to use under Rules 702, 703, or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence during its case-in-chief at trial. . . . The summary provided under this subparagraph must describe the witness's opinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions, and the witness's qualifications. FED.R.CRIM.P. 16(a)(1)(G). The Advisory Committee Notes (Notes) for Rule 16 state in relevant part: [T]he requesting party is entitled to a summary of the expected testimony. This provision is intended to permit more complete pretrial preparation by the requesting party. For example, this should inform the requesting party whether the expert will be providing only background information on a particular issue or whether the witness will actually offer an opinion. In some instances, a generic description of the likely witness and that witness's qualifications may be sufficient, e.g., where a DEA laboratory chemist will testify, but it is not clear which particular chemist will be available. FED.R.CRIM.P. 16, Advisory Committee Notes (1993 Amendment). In addition, in order to comply with Rule 16(a)(1)(G), the Notes specifically state that, perhaps most important, the requesting party is to be provided with a summary of the bases of the expert's opinion. Id. Without regard to whether a party would be entitled to the underlying bases for expert testimony under other provisions of Rule 16, the amendment requires a summary of the bases relied upon by the expert. That should cover not only written and oral reports, tests, reports, and investigations, but any information that might be recognized as a legitimate basis for an opinion under Federal Rule of Evidence 703, including opinions of other experts. Id. If a party fails to comply with this rule, Rule 16 instructs that the Court may do any of four things: (1) order that party to permit the discovery or inspection; specify its time, place, and manner; and prescribe other just terms and conditions;': (2) grant a continuance; (3) prohibit that party from introducing the undisclosed evidence; or (4) enter any other order that is just under the circumstances. FED. R.CRIM.P. 16(d)(2). We conclude that the district court incorrectly applied Rule 16(a)(1)(G) in this case because the government's submissions did not adequately describe the bases and reasons for the chemists' opinions. See FED.R.CRIM.P. 16(a)(1)(G). The government provided defense counsel with four documents. First, the government provided defense counsel with a copy of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Knoxville Crime Laboratory Official Forensic Chemistry Report, dated August 19, 2005. Second, the government attached a letter to the report indicating that if the case went to trial [a] chemist [would] testify consistent with the laboratory report. J.A. at 100 (10/11/05 Ltr. to Paula Voss at 2). In addition, the letter stated that [t]he chemist's testimony will be based on training, including formal education, and experience, including having conducted numerous such examinations. Id. Third, upon the addition of another count to the indictment against the defendant, the government sent a letter to defense counsel on October 26, 2005 that included a copy of a second laboratory report related to the second count. Finally, on March 28, 2006, the government filed a Notice of Expert Testimony Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which described, in broad terms, the educational background of the chemists, their experience, and the basis of their findings. J.A. at 94-95. This document devoted one sentence to the bases for the opinions of the chemists: The findings of each chemist are based upon his/her education, training, experience and scientific tests he/she performed on the substances submitted. J.A. at 95. Chemist Silvers testified at the trial that the government did not ask her for her notes (serving as the basis for her conclusions) until the day that she testified (after a request from the district judge). J.A. at 374, 473 (Trial Tr. at 239:9-16, 338:9-24). We conclude that none of these documents adequately indicate the bases for the chemists' laboratory reports; if Davis had hired a chemist, he or she would not have been able to analyze the steps that led the government's chemists to their conclusions. The prosecutors clearly violated Rule 16(a)(1)(G). It was proper for the district court to request that the chemists provide their notes to Davis's counsel. J.A. at 374-75, 377 ( id. at 239:4, 240:6-9; 242:3-11). However, Davis's counsel demonstrated his belief that the verdict would not have been different if the government had complied with the discovery rules by declining the district court's offer of a recess to review the newly provided chemists' notes and/or to obtain a chemist to testify on Davis's behalf. J.A. at 377 ( id. at 242:6-13). Also, Davis did not, upon the invitation of the district court, suggest any alternatives to total suppression of the evidence. J.A. at 375-77 ( id. at 240:23-241:1, 242:6-13). Finally, we note that, prior to trial, defense counsel should have been attuned to the implications of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b).