United States v. Moore, 3:20-cr-00029

Background

Defendant Jayshon Moore is indicted on production and possession of child pornography and sex trafficking of a minor; the court considered motions to exclude expert testimony before trial.
The government seeks to qualify FBI SSA James Hardie as an expert on sex trafficking dynamics, grooming, victim presentation, and sex‑trade jargon; Hardie is to give general/educational testimony and not case‑specific opinions.
Moore does not dispute Hardie’s qualifications generally but argues jargon testimony is conditionally irrelevant unless that specific terminology appears in admitted evidence; he also urges heightened gatekeeping for grooming testimony.
The government noticed defense expert Joshua Michel as a digital forensics examiner; the government contends Michel would exceed his expertise by interpreting chats/media and opining about prostitution/trafficking.
The court conditionally admitted Hardie’s background testimony (dynamics/grooming/trafficker–victim relationship) as qualified, relevant, and reliable but barred testimony about specialized terminology unless the government expects to show that the exact terms were used in the case; Hardie may not opine on case facts or witness credibility.
As to Michel, the court reserved ruling: it will hold a Daubert hearing after the government’s case and intends to limit Michel to digital forensic expertise, excluding trafficking/prostitution/jargon opinions unless supported by his qualifications and reliability.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Hardie testifying about sex‑trafficking jargon	Gov: Hardie may educate jury about terminology to assess victim credibility	Moore: Jargon testimony irrelevant unless terms appear in trial evidence and would unfairly influence jury	Court: Jargon testimony excluded unless gov’t in good faith expects to introduce evidence that specific terms were used; may be admitted later conditionally
Admissibility of Hardie’s background/grooming testimony	Gov: Educational testimony helps jury evaluate credibility and understand trafficking dynamics	Moore: Such testimony requires particularized gatekeeping and risks prejudice	Court: Hardie qualified; background/grooming testimony admissible as relevant/reliable but he may not opine on case facts or credibility; Rule 403 preserved for specific objections
Scope of Michel’s testimony beyond digital forensics	Gov: Michel’s conclusions go beyond digital forensics and would improperly opine on prostitution/trafficking	Moore: Scope depends on government’s evidence; defense must preserve rebuttal expert testimony	Court: Will hold a Daubert hearing after gov’t case; intends to limit Michel to digital forensic expertise and exclude trafficking/jargon opinions absent proper qualifications/reliability
Timing and procedure for resolving expert disputes	Gov: Seeks preclusion now	Moore: Requests ability to respond after gov’t case; asks for post‑government Daubert hearing	Court: Denied preclusion without prejudice; ordered Daubert hearing after government’s case and allowed parties to renew objections

Key Cases Cited

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (establishes federal gatekeeping standard for expert admissibility)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (applies Daubert gatekeeping to all expert testimony)
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (courts may exclude expert opinions with an analytical gap from the data)
Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558 (9th Cir.) (summarizes Daubert standards and gatekeeping role in Ninth Circuit)
In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir.) (discusses fit and relevance in expert testimony)
United States v. Taylor, 239 F.3d 994 (9th Cir.) (permits expert testimony on pimp–prostitute relationships as not common knowledge)
United States v. Brooks, 610 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.) (recognizes relevance of expert testimony in child‑sex‑trafficking contexts)