Opinion ID: 46339
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Professor Van Kemper’s Testimony

Text: Hernandez argues that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to admit the testimony of his expert witness, Robert Van Kemper, Professor of Cultural Anthropology at Southern Methodist University. Hernandez contends that because the evidence of Professor Van Kemper was relevant and necessary to counter Agent Stansel’s testimony, it should have been admitted. The district court’s ruling was based on what the court perceived to be a problem with the reliability of Professor Van Kemper’s testimony, as well as a problem with Rule 704(b). The district court may exclude expert testimony if the underlying basis for the expert’s opinion is not sufficiently reliable. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993); FED. R. EVID. 702. One of the factors the district court is to consider when assessing whether the methodology is scientifically valid or reliable is whether the theory has been subject to peer review and publication. Moore v. -12- Ashland Chem. Inc., 151 F.3d 269, 275 (5th Cir. 1998). Professor Van Kemper’s testimony relied largely upon one study on camionetas done by a professor in Los Angeles, and the district court expressed doubt as to the reliability of that study because it was not peer reviewed. The court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Professor Van Kemper’s testimony as not sufficiently reliable. With respect to Rule 704(b), the court concluded that Professor Van Kemper was qualified as an anthropologist, but found that Rule 704(b) prohibited his testimony and noted that Professor Van Kemper was in no better position than a juror to conclude whether Hernandez’s actions demonstrated knowledge or reckless disregard of the passengers’ immigration status. Because the purpose of Professor Van Kemper’s testimony was to negate Agent Stansel’s testimony and to provide other evidence concerning Hernandez’s state of mind, the testimony was rightfully excluded under Rule 704(b). Gutierrez-Farias, 294 F.3d at 663; Mendoza-Medina, 346 F.3d at 127-28.