United States v. Thornton, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12117

Thornton was convicted in the Seventh Circuit district court of felon in possession of ammunition, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and attempted possession with intent to distribute marijuana, with three concurrent 21-month sentences.
A FedEx-suspected marijuana package was delivered to Amato, who admitted delivering multiple marijuana shipments to Black; Amato cooperated and coordinated a later meeting at a Dollar Tree with Black, leading to Thornton’s arrest.
Agents recovered a second box in Thornton’s truck and a duffle bag of marijuana at his home, along with ammunition of three calibers and a weight of approximately eight and a half ounces of marijuana.
Thornton admitted in a recorded interview that he had more marijuana and ammunition at home, and the government introduced expert testimony on marijuana testing, weights, and ammunition origin.
Prior to trial, Rule 16 expert-disclosure guidance existed but no deadline; the prosecutor provided some CVs/reports late, and Thornton’s counsel did not press the court to enforce fuller disclosures.
Thornton challenged the government’s expert disclosures and cross-examination limits, as well as transportation and conspiracy-related questions about Amato on cross-examination; the district court admitted the experts and limited cross-examination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Amato cross-examination was improperly limited	Thornton; Amato’s involvement and motives were probative of credibility and Thornton’s intent.	Thornton; broader cross-examination would reveal Amato’s conspiracy involvement and motives to lie.	No reversible error; limitations were within discretion and any error was harmless.
Whether Hannon and Baudhuin qualified as experts under Daubert	Hannon and Baudhuin CVs/reports were adequate; Daubert analysis was not properly applied to Baudhuin.	CVs/reports were inadequate; Baudhuin’s testimony relied on hearsay-propagated materials and lacked Daubert scrutiny.	No abuse of discretion; even assuming inadequate disclosures, prejudice not shown; confrontation concerns not dispositive.
Whether Baudhuin’s testimony violated Confrontation Clause by relying on prosecution-maintained materials	Baudhuin relied on materials kept by ATF, created for prosecution, violating Confrontation Clause.	These materials were not testimonial; experts reasonably rely on such data and manufacturers’ information for expertise.	No Confrontation Clause violation; testimony based on admissible data reasonably relied upon by experts.

United States v. Boone, 628 F.3d 927 (7th Cir. 2010) (review of evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion; harmless-error standard)
United States v. Cooper, 591 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 2010) (harmless-error review; evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Wescott, 576 F.3d 347 (7th Cir. 2009) (evidentiary discretion and harmless error)
United States v. James, 464 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2006) (plain-error standard for forfeited Confrontation Clause claims)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (U.S. 2009) (business records; testimonial vs. non-testimonial evidence)
United States v. Moon, 512 F.3d 359 (7th Cir. 2008) (expert reliance on data not required to be admissible evidence)
United States v. Ware, 914 F.2d 997 (7th Cir. 1990) (expert reliance on manufacturer data and catalog information)