ILNews

District Court properly handles expert testimony by non-expert witnesses

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although neither witness called to testify in a criminal trial was an expert, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the District Court did not err by barring the testimony of the defense witness while allowing the statements of the government witness.

The 7th Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence of Randall Causey in United States of American v. Randall B. Causey, 13-1321.
.

Causey was convicted of one count of conspiring to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349 and eight counts of aiding and abetting the commission of, and committing the offenses of, wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343. He was sentenced to 108 months in prison for his role in a conspiracy to defraud borrowers and lenders in a real estate scheme in Gary during the housing boom years of 2005 and 2006.

As the only defendant to not plead guilty, Causey had a five-day trial that took place in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.

On appeal, Causey raised five issues, two of which asserted the District Court erred in its rulings on expert testimony.

During his trial, Causey called Douglas Kvachkoff, the owner of Indiana Title Network Co. Kvachkoff started by testifying about the contents of a closing folder he had, but when defense counsel began asking questions about how someone in the real estate industry would procure closing numbers, the District Court barred the responses as improper expert testimony.

The 7th Circuit agreed with the District Court. It found that the defense’s questions about the closing numbers required a specialized knowledge of the industry. Since Causey did not file the necessary Rule 16 disclosure, the 7th Circuit held that the District Court was within its discretion to exclude the expert testimony.

Also at trial, one of Causey’s co-conspirators, Sheila Chandler, was called as a witness for the government. Chandler testified about her role in the scheme and, at one point, said the Gary housing market was inflated by 400 percent.

Causey argued on appeal that Chandler was not qualified to give expert testimony and her 400 percent comment was beyond the scope of the government’s pretrial Rule 16 disclosure.

The 7th Circuit held that even if Chandler’s testimony exceeded the scope of the government’s disclosure, the error was harmless. Her statements were of little value to the government’s case and the defense counsel’s cross examination mitigated any potential harm by pointing out Chandler was not an appraiser.   


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT