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

Heading: Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Forensic Chemists at Trial

Text: The government sought to introduce the expert testimony of two forensic chemists:. Sharon Silvers and Celeste White. The court's Order on Discovery and Scheduling directed as follows: Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, any disclosure of expert information required by Rule 16(a)(1)(G), Fed.R.Cr.P., shall be made by the government at least three (3) weeks before trial. Any disclosures required by Rule 16(b)(1)(C) shall be made by defendant at least one (1) week before trial unless the Court orders otherwise. J.A. at 43 (10/3/05 Order at 3). The district court instructed the parties that all pretrial motions had to be made by March 10, 2006. On the second day of trial, defense counsel objected to the testimony of the chemists because the government allegedly failed to provide the bases for the chemists' opinions in accordance with the Discovery Order and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(G). Defense counsel stated: The problem is that all I got from the government in this case[,] all I received, Your Honor, about this is a document that looks like this which is a conclusory document. It says here is what it is and here is what it weighs. None of the underlying tests that tell me how they got there. Mind you, Rule 16 not only says that I am entitled to a summary, but that, summary provided under this subparagraph must describe the witness' [sic] opinions, the basis and the reasons for those opinions and the witness' [sic] qualifications. This certainly does none of the above, Your Honor. . . . Just because I have been provided with a report that says it is cocaine and that there is 3.8 grams of it doesn't mean that has given me sufficient information to cross-examine this witness. J.A. at 358-59 (Trial Tr. at 223:11-21, 224:6-10). Defense counsel showed the district court two letters, one dated March 2, 2005 and one dated March 6, 2005, that he contended specifically asked for information necessary for the government to be in compliance with Rule 16(a)(1)(G). J.A. at 357 ( id. at 222:8-17). These letters were mistakenly dated 2005; the actual year was 2006. The letter, addressed to Assistant United States Attorney Cook (Cook) of March 2 states, in relevant part: By this letter, please be advised that I am requesting that you provide me with a written summary of any testimony that you intend to use under Rules 702, 703, or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. I believe that this information is covered under the Standing Discovery Order and under my previous discovery request. J.A. at 810 (3/2/06 Ltr. to AUSA Cook). On March 6, defense counsel sent another letter to Cook, stating in relevant part: As I was going through my file, I noticed that I had not received an item that I had previously requested regarding a 16(a)(1) item, specifically: The reports, results, and opinions of expert examinations, tests, experiments and analysis done on any person or physical items or other evidence in connection with this case. See Barbee v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary, 331 F.2d 842 (4th Cir.1964); Norris v. Slayton, 540 F.2d 1241 (4th Cir.1976). If you could get this information over to me at your earliest convenience, it would be greatly appreciated. If you did not consider my previous requests to be formal requests, please consider this request to be a formal request. J.A. at 811 (3/6/06 Ltr. to AUSA Cook). Defense counsel argued that he not only had written the letters, but also had raised the issue on several occasions with the presiding magistrate judge: Your Honor, mind you, during this entire time we have gone back before Magistrate Shirley on several occasions. At each time I, quite frankly, get chewed out a little bit because Magistrate Shirley keeps telling me, Mr. Oldham, this is the government's obligation. The government knows what it is supposed to provide. The government is supposed to get you this information and their failure to do so is done at their own peril with the possibility this evidence might be excluded, if they fail to disclose it properly. J.A. at 357-58 (Trial Tr. at 222:8-223:2). Defense counsel suggested that the proper remedy was to exclude these witnesses from testifying. J.A. at 360 ( id. at 225:12). Cook argued that the disclosure he provided in this case was the same disclosure that he had made in every drug case that he had prosecuted for the last 20 years. J.A. at 361 ( id. at 226:3-7). The government introduced its first discovery letter, dated October 11, 2005, that it sent to Davis's original counsel, Paula Voss. The letter indicated that its purpose was to comply with rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Court's discovery order. J.A. at 99 (10/11/05 Ltr. to Paula Voss at 1). The letter included a copy of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Knoxville Crime Laboratory Official Forensic Chemistry Report dated 8/19/05. J.A. at 99 (id.). Also, the letter stated: If this case goes to trial, the United States will call expert witnesses to testify. A chemist will testify consistent with the laboratory report. The chemist's testimony will be based on training, including formal education, and experience, including having conducted numerous such examinations. J.A. at 100 ( id. at 2). The government sent a follow-up letter on October 26, 2005 that stated, in relevant part: If you believe I have failed to provide anything that is discoverable under rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or the Court's discovery order, please let me know right away. J.A. at 102-03 (10/26/05 Ltr. to Christopher Oldham at 1-2). Finally, the government introduced a letter from March 22, 2006, which stated in relevant part: If there are any other discovery requests or issues that have not been resolved, please let me know immediately. . . . Please also accept this letter as a request to stipulate the drug analysis. J.A. at 105. On March 28, 2006, the government filed its Notice of Expert Testimony Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. J.A. at 93-95. This document stated, in relevant part: Chemists: These individuals have received bachelor's degrees. In addition, they have received specialized training in the identification of controlled substances. They have also conducted hundreds of forensic examinations, successfully identifying the presence, type and weight of controlled substances. These individuals will testify as experts in the field of forensic chemistry consistent with the laboratory reports that have previously been provided. The findings of each chemist are based upon his/her education, training, experience and scientific tests he/she performed on the substances submitted. [1] J.A. at 94-95 (Notice of Expert Test, at 2-3). The district court held that the documents provided by the government (and described above) demonstrated compliance with Rule 16(a)(1)(G). In addition, the district court ruled that it would be inappropriate to exclude the testimony of the chemists as a remedy. However, out of an abundance of caution, the district court requested that the chemists provide their notes to defense counsel. J.A. at 374-75 (Trial Tr. at 239:4, 240:6-9). Defense counsel protested that he did not have the training to look at the notes. J.A. at 375 ( id. at 240:17-18). Defense counsel stated: Your Honor, I mean, this is what I am looking at; wavy numbers, centimeters. I don't even know what questions to ask, Your Honor. J.A. at 375 ( id. at 240:20-22). The court specifically asked: Do you have any other, proposals short of the requested sanctions you made [to exclude the chemists' testimony completely]? J.A. at 375 ( id. at 240:23-24). Davis's counsel did not bring forth any other proposals and declined the court's invitation to recess until the following day. The record does not indicate that defense counsel had a chemist prepared to testify at the trial.