2.Expert Testimony Limits and Adolescent Brain-Development Ruling
14 linesTHE COURT: Right. Right. Okay.
So to return to the motion we discussed last week, which was the government's motion in limine regarding certain expert testimony, I think some controversy seems to be shrinking as to some of these matters. And I guess my general inclination is we'll have to see what actually gets offered and deal with it that way. And in particular, I'm thinking of Professor Reynolds' collateral materials, if he has PowerPoint. The defense response indicates it's been reduced rather significantly, and as I understand, it tends to come from the defendant's computer, so it's materials that have been previously -- at least seen by the government. So I don't know what the final package would look like. That will help define, I imagine, what the scope of his testimony is going to look like as well.
So I think for those we have to sort of wait and see what the circumstances are when the witnesses arrive.
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, we'd just ask, though, that there be a general understanding that Professor Reynolds is here to testify about matters within his expertise as a historian of Chechen -- of the Middle East -- or of the part of the east that he's an expert in and not a psychologist.
THE COURT: All of the experts will be expected to testify only within their field of expertise.
MR. WEINREB: And then Dr. Giedd is the main one that I think we need a ruling on.
THE COURT: Yeah, I guess we -- yes, all right. So with respect to Dr. Giedd, I mean, again, if his testimony is as proffered, which is his generalized testimony about adolescents as a class, then it may be given. He can't stray into evidence about a particular adolescent, if that is what he is at age 19, and so...
MR. WEINREB: Well, our argument was that generalized testimony about adolescents should be excluded because it's not individualized to the defendant. If that objection is overruled, then we would ask that the Court grant the government's motion to obtain the defendant's CT films from the --
THE COURT: All right. So that gets to the next one.
So, yes, I do -- I will permit the generalized testimony about adolescents or young men in the defendant's range as a general segment of the population and what that means for brain development generally.
MR. WEINREB: And then the other thing we'd ask is we have an expert who would be testifying in rebuttal who would like to be here for Dr. Giedd's testimony, and he's out of state and will need several days' advance notice of when Dr. Giedd will be testifying so that that person can make arrangements.
THE COURT: I'm assuming that won't be a problem?
MS. CLARKE: We're anticipating right now May 5th.
THE COURT: May 5th is a Tuesday, if I recall.
MS. CLARKE: You know, all of this is subject -- we're giving as much as we can. Maybe it's May 4th, maybe it's May 6th.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: Actually, as long as I'm up here, the same thing would be true for Ms. Vogelsang's testimony. We would like to have our expert here when she testifies, and so we need to know roughly, you know, within a day or two when she's going to be testifying. That person also has to fly in from out of state.