United States v. Gonzales
1:23-cr-01620
| D.N.M. | Jun 6, 2025Background
- Defendant Joshua Gonzales moved to exclude expert witness testimony from four FBI experts: CAST (cell site), DNA, fingerprint, and footwear (footprint) analysts in a criminal case.
- The government provided expert disclosures and reports for each expert, detailing their expected testimony and methodologies.
- Daubert hearings were held for all four contested experts to assess the adequacy of the expert notices and the admissibility of their testimony under the rules governing expert evidence.
- Defendant’s primary objections included alleged deficiency of expert notice (especially for CAST), relevance (for DNA, fingerprint, and footwear testimony), and reliability (for footwear testimony methodology).
- The court reviewed both the procedural adequacy of notices (under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16) and the substance of the expert methodologies and findings (under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Expert Notice (CAST) | Notice and reports are adequate and timely | Notice lacks sufficient detail, impeding defense preparation | Notice is sufficient; even if not, exclusion not proper |
| Admissibility/Relevance (DNA/Serology) | DNA findings, even inconclusive, help jury | Inconclusive results are not relevant/helpful to jury | DNA testimony is relevant/adm. |
| Admissibility/Relevance (Fingerprint) | Examiner’s work, even showing no match, is relevant | Irrelevant since prints were not suitable for comparison | Testimony is relevant/adm. |
| Reliability (Footwear Testimony) | Method is standard, peer-reviewed, and reliable | Methodology is too subjective and limited data undermine reliability | Method reliable, testimony admissible; cross-exam adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (established the standard for admissibility of expert testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (extended Daubert’s gatekeeping to all expert testimony)
- United States v. Avitia-Guillen, 680 F.3d 1253 (trial court need not make explicit findings absent specific objection)
- United States v. McDonald, 933 F.2d 1519 (trial judge's broad discretion on admission/exclusion of expert testimony)
- United States v. Rice, 52 F.3d 843 (relevance of expert testimony is about its helpfulness to the jury)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Felix, 450 F.3d 1117 (sets standard for when expert testimony aids the factfinder)
- United States v. Nacchio, 555 F.3d 1234 (burden on proponent for expert reliability; judge must analyze methodology)