United States v. Dunham

654 F.Supp.3d 1183

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Christian Scott DUNHAM, Defendant.

Case No. 22-CR-141-JFH

United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma

Signed February 7, 2023

Joshua Satter, Government Attorney, U.S. Attorney, Muskogee, OK, for Plaintiff.

Richard L. Koller, Public Defender, Federal Public Defender, Muskogee, OK, Stuart W. Southerland, Public Defender, Federal Public Defender, Tulsa, OK, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN F. HEIL, III, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is (1) Defendant's Opposed Motion in Limine ("Motion in Limine") [Dkt. No. 54], and (2) Defendant's Motion for Hearing Pursuant to Daubert/Kumho Tire ("Daubert Motion") [Dkt. No. 55] (together, the "Motions") filed by Defendant Christian Scott Dunham ("Defendant"). The Government filed a response in opposition to Defendant's Motions. Dkt. No. 56. For the following reasons, Defendant's Motions [Dkt. Nos. 54 and 55] are DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On August 20, 2022, J.S. was found shot in the chest in Poteau, Oklahoma, and was pronounced dead shortly thereafter. Dkt. No. 54 at 1; Dkt. No. 56 at 2. On October 13, 2022, Defendant was charged by Indictment with three counts related to J.S.'s death: (1) Murder in Indian Country - Second Degree, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111(a), 1151, and 1153; (2) Use, Carry, Brandish and Discharge a Firearm During and In Relation to a Crime of Violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), (ii), and (iii); and (3) Causing the Death of Another Person in the Course of a Violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j). Dkt. No. 20.

Until recently, the case against Defendant had been largely circumstantial. Dkt. No. 54 at 1; Dkt. No. 56 at 3. At the time of J.S.'s murder, Defendant had been staying at a residence near the location where J.S. was shot. Dkt. No. 54 at 1-2. Law enforcement found a Harrington & Richardson model .22 caliber revolver (the "H & R firearm") on the property where Defendant was staying. Dkt. No. 56 at 2. Government expert, J.D. Lindstrom, determined that traces of Defendant's DNA were present on the H & R firearm and, further, witnesses indicated that they had seen Defendant with a similar type of weapon around the time of J.S.'s murder. Id. Another Government expert, Samantha Meisinger, examined the bullet recovered from J.S.'s body and concluded that it had specific "lands and grooves" that an H & R firearm would produce, although she could not definitely state whether the bullet recovered from J.S. came from the H & R firearm Id. at 2-3. Additionally, other witnesses stated that Defendant admitted to killing J.S. in the days following the murder. Dkt. No. 56 at 2.

Prior to being indicted in this matter, Defendant was arrested on unrelated charges. Dkt. No. 54 at 2. During a law enforcement interview related to that offense, Defendant denied involvement in J.S.'s murder, but made other statements related to his criminal history and affiliation with the "Savage Boys," a street gang in Oklahoma. Id.; see also Dkt. No. 56 at 3.

On January 19, 2023, the Government received materials indicating that there was an eyewitness to the shooting: E.W. Dkt. No. 56 at 3. Specifically, E.W. provided information regarding his presence with Defendant at the time of the shooting and circumstances surrounding the shooting, including a potential motive. Id. at 3. The Government provided those materials to defense counsel on January 24, 2023. Id. at 4.

This case is set on the Court's March 6, 2023 jury trial docket. Dkt. No. 49. Defendant timely filed a Motion in Limine seeking to preclude evidence of Defendant's criminal history, gang affiliation, and "speculative evidence of motive." Dkt. No. 54. Defendant also filed a Daubert Motion challenging the qualifications of Government expert, Samantha Meisinger, and the reliability and relevance of testimony that she may provide at trial. Dkt. No. 55 at 1. Defendant further requested a hearing on his Daubert Motion. Id.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion in Limine [Dkt. No. 54]

"The purpose of a motion in limine is to aid the trial process by enabling the Court to rule in advance of trial on the relevance of certain forecasted evidence, as to the issues that are definitely set for trial, without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the trial." Mendelsohn v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 587 F.Supp.2d 1201, 1208 (D. Kan. 2008) aff'd, 402 Fed. App'x 337 (10th Cir. 2010) (quotation and citation omitted). In many instances, evidentiary rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy, and potential prejudice may be resolved in the proper context. Id. "A court will generally not grant a motion in limine unless the moving party meets its burden of showing that the evidence in question is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds." Tulsa Zoo Mgmt., Inc. v. Peckham Guyton Albers & Viets, Inc., No. 17-CV-644-GKF, 2019 WL 1562147, at *1 (N.D. Okla. Mar. 5, 2019) (citation and quotation omitted).

A. Defendant's criminal history and gang affiliation

Defendant requests the exclusion of any reference to his criminal history or gang affiliation. Dkt. No. 54 at 5. The Government states that it does not intend to present evidence of Defendant's criminal history or gang affiliation in its case-in-chief.¹ Dkt. No. 56 at 7. However, the Government states that it reserves its right to use Defendant's criminal history and gang affiliation as impeachment evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 613(b). The Government explains that because it "cannot predict whether Defendant will testify at trial, or what the nature of his testimony will be [ ] it is not requesting a pretrial ruling on the admissibility of this potential impeachment evidence." Dkt. No. 56 at 8.

Fed. R. Evid. 613(b) permits extrinsic evidence of a witness' prior inconsistent statement "only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it, or if justice so requires." Fed. R. Evid. 613(b). The Court agrees with the Government that this issue is not ripe for pretrial determination. Should the occasion arise at trial where the Government intends to introduce evidence of Defendant's criminal history or gang affiliation under Fed. R. Evid. 613(b), it is instructed to inform the Court outside the presence of the jury so the matter may be addressed in its proper context. Therefore, Defendant's motion to exclude evidence of Defendant's criminal history and gang affiliation must be denied.

B. "Speculative Evidence of Motive"

Next, Defendant requests the exclusion of any "speculative evidence of his potential motive."² Dkt. No. 54 at 9. However, the Federal Rules of Evidence already safeguard against the presentation of speculative evidence. See e.g., Fed. R. Evid. 602 ("A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter."); Fed. R. Evid. 701 and 802 (protecting against opinion testimony of lay witnesses and hearsay). The parties are expected to follow the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Court need not enter an order directing the parties to do so. Therefore, Defendant's motion to exclude speculative evidence of motive must be denied.

For these reasons, Defendant's Opposed Motion in Limine [Dkt. No. 54] is DENIED.

II. Daubert Motion [Dkt. No. 55]

Admissibility of expert witness testimony is evaluated under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which permits a qualified expert witness to testify and render an opinion when:

(a) The expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to 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 methods; and

(d) The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Fed. R. Evid. 702. "When an objection to an expert's testimony is raised, the court must perform Daubert gatekeeper duties before the jury is permitted to hear the evidence." Bright v. Ohio Nat'l Life Assur. Corp., 11-CV-475-GKF, 2013 WL 12327512, at *1 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 9, 2013) (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 149, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999)).

"First, the Court determines whether the expert is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education to render the opinion." Lippe v. Howard, 287 F. Supp. 3d 1271, 1277-78 (W.D. Okla. 2018). "If so qualified, the Court must then determine whether the expert's opinion is reliable and relevant under the principles set forth in Daubert and Kumho Tire, in that it will assist the trier of fact." Id. at 1278. The party offering the expert testimony has the burden to prove that the expert is qualified and that his opinions are based in sound methodology and sufficient facts. Dodge v. Cotter Corp., 328 F.3d 1212, 1222 (10th Cir. 2003).

A. Qualifications

The first step in the Daubert inquiry is to determine whether a witness is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to render an opinion. Lippe, 287 F.Supp.3d at 1277-78. An expert's qualifications must provide "a foundation for a witness to answer a specific question." Id. at 1279 (quotation and citation omitted). An expert's qualifications must be both "(i) adequate in general, qualitative sense (i.e., knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education as required by Rule 702) and (ii) specific in the matters he proposes to address as an expert." Id. An expert cannot provide an opinion regarding matters on which his background and training do not provide a proper foundation. See English v. Estes Express Lines, No. 5:16-CV-01353-CAS, 2018 WL 1136058, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2018).

The Government's expert, Samantha Meisinger ("Mei...