United States v. Evans
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123652
| N.D. Ill. | 2012Background
- Government moves to admit cell-site evidence and granulization testimony by FBI Special Agent Raschke; Evans and co-defendants charged with conspiracy to kidnap (Count I) and kidnapping (Count II) based on 2010 events; Raschke proposes granulization to place Evans’s phone at victim’s holding building during conspiracy in 18-minute window on April 24, 2010; evidentiary hearing held under Rule 702 and Daubert on August 21-23, 2012; court grants in part and denies in part Evans’s Rule 16 disclosure motion; court excludes granulization testimony and estimated ranges but admits maps and other non-range exhibits; addresses admissibility of related exhibits and hearsay considerations; concludes with guidance on what exhibits are admissible
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of maps showing cell towers under Rule 701 | Evans argues maps are specialized and require expert testimony | Govt. argues maps are lay opinions using common tools like Google Maps | Admissible as lay opinion (Rule 701) |
| Reliability of granulization theory under Rule 702/Daubert | Granulization is reliable and routinely used by FBI; not contested | Theory untested, unpeer-reviewed, unaccepted; not generally reliable | Granulization testimony excluded under Rule 702/Daubert; no reliable basis |
| Expert qualification of Raschke to testify about cellular networks | Raschke is qualified by training and experience | No issue raised on experience; challenge limited to theory | Raschke qualified to testify on cellular networks and granulization (but granulization excluded) |
| Admissibility of call data record context and network operation testimony | Call data and network operation testimony help jury understand evidence | Need for expert interpretation beyond lay understanding | Testimony on network operation and call data records admissible as expert/narrative context |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (reliability inquiry for scientific expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (flexible Daubert gatekeeping for technical testimony)
- United States v. Christian, 673 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2012) (law-enforcement expert testimony; complexity of testimony; admissibility under 702)
- United States v. Mamah, 332 F.3d 475 (7th Cir. 2003) (link between data and conclusions in Rule 702 analysis)
- Chapman v. Maytag Corp., 297 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2002) (Daubert factors; test reliability and method validity)
- United States v. Conn, 297 F.3d 548 (7th Cir. 2002) (lay opinion vs expert opinion; perception-based testimony)
- United States v. Graham, 846 F.Supp.2d 384 (D. Md. 2012) (business records and historical cell site location records admissibility)