United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Western Division
JEFFREY L. VIKEN CHIEF JUDGE
Andries Snyman filed a notice of intent to call Dr. Ilan H.
Meyer as an expert witness. (Dockets 58 & 61). The
government opposes Dr. Meyer's proposed testimony.
(Docket 68). The government argues defendant's expert
notice fails to meet Rule 16(b)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, Dr. Meyer does not satisfy the
Daubert requirements and the proposed testimony is
inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403.
Id. At the court's request, the parties
submitted additional filings regarding the admissibility of
Dr. Meyer's testimony. (Dockets 76, 77 & 78). The
court finds Dr. Meyer's anticipated testimony is
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
on defendant's filings, he has met the requirements of
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 16. (Docket 58, 61,
70, 76 & 78). These submissions sufficiently summarize
Dr. Meyer's “opinions, the bases and reasons for
the opinions, and [his] qualifications.” Fed. R. Crim.
admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Fed.R.Evid.
702. Fed.R.Evid. 702 provides:
witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education may testify in the form of
an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and
methods to the facts of the case.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit noted
that the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), “charged trial judges
with acting as gatekeepers to exclude unreliable expert
testimony.” Robinson v. Geico General Ins.
Co., 447 F.3d 1096, 1100 (8th Cir. 2006).
proponent of the expert testimony must prove its
admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Lauzon v. Senco Products, Inc., 270 F.3d 681, 686
(8th Cir. 2001) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592).
Moreover, the Eighth Circuit held that “doubts
regarding ‘whether an expert's testimony will be
useful should generally be resolved in favor of
admissibility.' ” Clark v. Heidrick, 150
F.3d 912, 915 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting Larabee v. MM
& L Int'l Corp., 896 F.2d 112, 116 n.6 (8th Cir.
1990)). See also Sphere Drake Insurance PLC v.
Trisko, 226 F.3d 951, 954 (8th Cir. 2000).
legal principles do not support excluding Dr. Meyer from
testifying in this case. Defendant's filings sufficiently
demonstrate Dr. Meyer's proposed testimony is admissible
expert testimony. (Docket 58, 61, 70, 76 & 78). Dr. Meyer
has an extensive educational background in his field of
expertise, and he publishes scholarly, peer-reviewed articles
on social science subjects within that field. At best, the
government raises “doubts” about the testimony,
Clark, 150 F.3d at 915, which are properly addressed