United States v. Wen Chyu Liu
716 F.3d 159
5th Cir.2013Background
- Liou was convicted of conspiracy to steal Dow trade secrets and perjury; district court excluded the defense expert Ostermiller’s testimony on CPE manufacturing; government’s witnesses linked Liou to obtaining Dow trade secrets; Liou formed Pacific Richland to market Dow-style CPE in China and shipped Dow-like documentation; trial evidence showed Liou’s co-conspirators stole Dow information and Liou financed and coordinated the scheme; Liou challenged both the exclusion of Ostermiller and the sufficiency of the perjury evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by excluding Ostermiller’s testimony | Liou contend[ed] Ostermiller’s public-domain/engineering comparison testimony was admissible | Government objected to the comparison aspect as beyond the scope of the notice | Yes, error in exclusion; but harmless overall |
| Whether Ostermiller’s testimony comparing Dow and Pacific Richland documents should have been admitted | Ostermiller had relevant experience and could compare drawings; exclusion abused weight not admissibility | Lack of CPE-specific expertise warranted exclusion | Yes, error to exclude; weight to be given by jury rather than admissibility |
| Whether the district court’s exclusion of Ostermiller affected the verdict | Exclusion could have helped Liou rebut evidence of intent to steal trade secrets | Record shows overwhelming evidence of Liou’s intent and involvement | No, harmless error; did not affect verdict |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Liou of perjury | Stoecker’s testimony and corroborating evidence supported Liou’s deposition under oath | Liou argues statements were not false | Sufficient evidence; perjury conviction affirmed |
| Whether the Government proved Liou’s conspiracy to steal trade secrets beyond a reasonable doubt despite Ostermiller’s exclusion | Oceans of corroborating testimony showed Liou’s intent and actions | Ostermiller’s testimony would not have rebutted government’s evidence | Yes, verdict affirmed despite exclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (trial court gatekeeping for reliability of expert testimony)
- Exum v. General Electric Co., 819 F.2d 1158 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (qualification may be based on factors beyond personal experience)
- Martin v. Fleissner GmbH, 741 F.2d 61 (4th Cir. 1984) (expert need not be specialized in precise area; weight goes to jury)
- Wheeler v. John Deere Co., 935 F.2d 1090 (10th Cir. 1991) (lack of specialization affects weight, not admissibility)
- United States v. Ballis, 28 F.3d 1399 (5th Cir. 1994) (general description of excluded evidence insufficient without offer of proof)