History
  • No items yet
midpage
United States v. Norwood
16 F. Supp. 3d 848
E.D. Mich.
2014
Read the full case

Background

  • Defendants are charged under RICO as members of the "Howard Boys," alleged to be a neighborhood-based criminal organization in Flint, Michigan, whose activities include drug trafficking and violence.
  • The Government disclosed 17 experts; two challenged here are DEA SA Scott Nedoff (drug-trafficking expert) and FBI SA Robert Bornstein (gang expert).
  • Defendants moved to exclude or limit both experts under Fed. R. Evid. 702; the court held a Daubert-style inquiry and an evidentiary hearing for Bornstein.
  • Government proffered Nedoff to testify about common practices of drug distribution (e.g., packaging, scales, cash transactions, firearms). Nedoff has ~15 years DEA experience and prior expert testimony.
  • Government proffered Bornstein to testify about attributes of neighborhood-based street gangs (e.g., territory, graffiti, codes, violence). Bornstein has FBI gang investigative experience in Oklahoma, Connecticut, and an 18-month headquarters role but no experience with Flint or the Howard Boys.
  • Court's ruling: Nedoff admitted as a drug-trafficking expert; Bornstein excluded as a gang expert (unreliable, irrelevant, and unhelpful; and possibly confusing under Rule 403).

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Admissibility of Nedoff’s drug-trafficking expert testimony under Rule 702/Daubert Nedoff’s DEA training, long experience, and prior expert testimony qualify him to explain drug-distribution indicia to the jury Nedoff lacks specialized methodology; testimony would be cumulative or unnecessary because jurors know about drug dealing Admitted: Court found Nedoff’s experience reliable and helpful; permitted opinions including linkage between firearms and drug trafficking
Admissibility of Bornstein’s gang expert testimony under Rule 702/Daubert Bornstein’s FBI gang investigations and HQ role permit him to opine about common gang features nationwide Bornstein’s opinions are anecdotal, not tied to Flint or the Howard Boys, risk usurping jury’s role, and are prejudicial Excluded: Court found Bornstein’s opinions unreliable, not shown to apply to the specific gang/locale, potentially misleading under Rule 403, and not helpful to jurors
Whether generalized gang expert testimony can substitute for proof of a RICO enterprise Gov’t: gang expert aids jurors in understanding gang indicia that overlap with enterprise evidence Defs: permitting an expert to define or imply an enterprise would shortcut Gov’t’s burden and confuse the jury Excluded: Court held Govt failed to show how general gang opinions reliably bear on RICO enterprise; risk of conflating "gang" with "RICO enterprise" warranted exclusion
Whether expert may testify regarding tools-of-the-trade (e.g., firearms) Gov’t: agent testimony about common tools of drug trade assists jury Defs: needs statistical or methodological support beyond assumptions Admitted (for Nedoff): Sixth Circuit precedent tolerates such testimony; court allowed Nedoff to testify firearms commonly associate with drug trafficking

Key Cases Cited

  • Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (gatekeeping obligation for expert testimony)
  • Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony)
  • United States v. Swafford, 385 F.3d 1026 (6th Cir.) (tolerant view linking firearms to drug trafficking)
  • United States v. White, 563 F.3d 184 (6th Cir.) (expert testimony on tools of the trade routine in drug cases)
  • United States v. Tocco, 200 F.3d 401 (6th Cir.) (law-enforcement expert testimony on organized crime/gangs where expert had detailed gang-specific experience)
  • Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (RICO enterprise structural elements require proof of purpose, relationships, and longevity)
  • United States v. Combs, 369 F.3d 925 (6th Cir.) (permitting generalized drug-distribution expert testimony)
  • United States v. Stafford, 721 F.3d 380 (6th Cir.) (court’s gatekeeper role under Rule 702 and consideration of reliability)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Norwood
Court Name: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Date Published: Apr 29, 2014
Citation: 16 F. Supp. 3d 848
Docket Number: Case No. 12-CR-20287
Court Abbreviation: E.D. Mich.