Opinion ID: 187186
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Expert Testimony of Forensic Chemist Waninger

Text: All three defendants contend that the district court erred in denying a motion to strike the expert testimony of Eileen Waninger, an FBI forensic chemist. Waninger testified that evidence recovered from trash cans behind the Rosedale building and from apartments # 3 and # 4 contained residue of controlled substances, including cocaine base, cocaine powder, and heroin. After allowing the prosecution to recall Waninger so she could explain testing procedures in greater detail, the district court denied the objection to her testimony. We review the district court's decision to admit the testimony under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997). Defendants argue that the district court should have barred Waninger's testimony because the evidence did not establish that her conclusions ... were reliable. Under Daubert, the district court must focus `solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.' Ambrosini v. Labarraque, 101 F.3d 129, 133 (D.C.Cir.1996) (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 595, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)). In acting as gatekeeper, the court must determine first whether the expert's testimony is based on `scientific knowledge;' and second, whether the testimony `will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue.' Id. (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592, 113 S.Ct. 2786). As this court noted in Ambrosini, the Daubert Court outlined four factors that the district court could use to evaluate scientific validity: (1) whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the method's known or potential rate of error; and (4) whether the theory or technique finds general acceptance in the relevant scientific community. Id. at 134. The court further emphasized that the inquiry is a flexible one; the factors outlined are not necessarily applicable in every case or dispositive; nor are [they] exhaustive. Id. Here, Waninger explained that, following FBI Laboratory protocol of identifying residue by more than one technique, she used at least two of the three following tests to identify the residue on each item: (1) ion mobility spectrometry, (2) infrared spectroscopy, and (3) gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. She testified that ion mobility spectrometry is an accepted screening technique in forensic chemistry; that it has been used for many, many years; that it is regularly used, including in Drug Enforcement Agency narcotics testing and airport explosives testing; and that a lot of papers have been written about its use. She testified that infrared spectroscopy, a technique that passes infrared light through a sample to determine its unique chemical spectra, is used worldwide by forensic chemists to detect controlled substances; that she has used it for ten years; and that it has been around a lot longer than that. Finally, Waninger testified about the third technique, gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, which allows chemists to separate the components in a mixture and identify the chemicals in them based upon their mass spectrum. She testified that the technique is scientifically accepted, that she has used it for more than 15 years, and that it is widely used by forensic chemists for the detection of controlled substances. Waninger also explained that she represents the FBI on a scientific working group for the analysis of seized drugs, and that the group has published recommendations on the minimum standards for qualitative identification of the presence of a controlled substance using those techniques. She further testified that her FBI laboratory followed those standards. Waninger's testimony that all three techniques have been established for many years, are widely used, and are accepted in the relevant scientific community is sufficient to satisfy the limited Daubert inquiry. See Ambrosini, 101 F.3d at 134 (General acceptance in the relevant scientific community may be sufficient to permit the admissibility of expert testimony....); see also United States v. Vitek Supply Corp., 144 F.3d 476, 485-86 (7th Cir.1998) (finding that techniques including gas chromatography/mass spectrometry are widely used and generally accepted in the fields of analytical and forensic chemistry). We also note the expert's personal experience. See Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 148-49, 151-52, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999). Waninger had worked at the FBI's Quantico lab for ten years, had previously worked as a forensic scientist for a state police department for four years, and had testified as a forensic chemistry expert at least 40 times in federal and state courts throughout all of the United States as well as internationally. The district court did not err in admitting her testimony.