Opinion ID: 4520967
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Court Appointed Expert

Text: Juhic argues that the district court erred in denying his request for a court appointed expert to examine Agent Simon’s undercover laptop under Federal Rule of Evidence 706.2 We review a district court’s decision not to appoint an expert witness for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Provost, 875 F.2d 172, 175 (8th Cir. 1989) (“A trial court has broad discretion to grant application for appointment of an expert witness.”); see also Toney v. Hakala, 556 F. App’x. 570, 571 (8th Cir. 2014) (unpublished). Rule 706 allows the district court to use its “discretion to procure the assistance of an expert of its own choosing.” Sorensen ex rel. Dunbar v. Shaklee Corp., 31 F.3d 638, 651 (8th Cir. 1994); accord U.S. Marshals Serv. v. Means, 741 F.2d 1053, 1057– 58 (8th Cir. 1984) (en banc) (stating that a district court has discretionary power to call its own expert witness). In ruling on the issue at a pretrial hearing, the court did not find reason to believe that further investigation of Agent Simon’s laptop would lead to exculpatory information. 2 Juhic also argues that not allowing him to examine Agent Simon’s undercover laptop is a violation of the Walsh Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3509(m). The Walsh Act is not applicable here because it applies to the examination of the material that constitutes child pornography, not the computer used during the investigation. Juhic has made no argument that the videos and pictures at issue were not child pornography or that he was not able to examine those materials. -4- Juhic has presented no evidence in support of his theory that ransomware on Agent Simon’s laptop planted child pornography on Juhic’s laptop. Juhic’s own expert had an opportunity to look for artifacts of malware on Juhic’s laptop and found no evidence of ransomware. At trial, it was established that the ransomware infecting Agent Simon’s undercover laptop had been mitigated and ShareazaLE reinstalled by April 20, 2015. The files found on Juhic’s laptop were downloaded between July and September 2015, months after Agent Simon used his laptop to monitor Juhic’s IP address in June 2015. Testimony at trial also established that ShareazaLE could not upload programs to other computers and that the ransomware on Agent Simon’s undercover laptop was not the type that attempted to infect other machines. Juhic provided no justifiable reason for the court to appoint its own expert, and the court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to do so.