United States v. Laraba

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. TODD LARABA, Defendant.

No. 19-CR-36-RJA

United States District Court, W.D. New York

July 5, 2023

DECISION AND ORDER

HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Defendant Todd Laraba is charged in a three-count Indictment (Dkt. No 1) with Hobbs Act Conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (Count 1); Hobbs Act Robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and § 2 (Count 2); and Marijuana Conspiracy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 3). Pending before the Court are Laraba's objections (Dkt. No. 161) to Judge Roemer's Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Dkt. No. 156), which recommends that the Court deny Laraba's motion (Dkt. No. 104) to exclude the testimony of the Government's DNA expert as unqualified and/or unreliable-in essence, an in limine ruling precluding that testimony at trial-and alternatively, for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) on the admissibility of the DNA expert's testimony. For the reasons set forth below and in the R&R, Laraba's motion is DENIED, Laraba's objections are REJECTED, and the R&R is ADOPTED.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In relation to the robbery charges, the Government claims that on September 28, 2017, Laraba and another individual participated in a home-invasion style robbery at the residence of two elderly victims in Tonawanda, New York. According to the Government, Laraba and the other perpetrator (who were both wearing masks) zip tied the victims' hands and ankles together and duct-taped the victims' eyes and mouths shut-and proceeded to steal a lockbox full of cash ($60,000) that had been hidden in the rafters of the victims' attic. The Town of Tonawanda Police Department recovered zip ties and pieces of duct tape from the robbed residence, which were later analyzed in 2017 by the Government's DNA expert, Forensic Biologist and Analyst Denise Bantle from the Erie County Central Police Services Forensic Laboratory (“CPS Lab”). Bantle issued six reports establishing a high probability that Laraba's DNA was on these recovered items.

In August 2021, the CPS Lab became aware of a reporting error made by Bantle in an unrelated state criminal case prosecuted by the Erie County District Attorney's Office. The Government then asked the CPS Lab to review Bantle's DNA reports from cases the U.S. Attorney's Office was prosecuting in this District, including in the instant case. The CPS Lab separately conducted an audit/ internal investigation into Bantle's prior work. In short, a total of eight reporting errors by Bantle were eventually discovered, although none were related to Laraba's case.

Jury selection before this Court was originally scheduled for December 7, 2021. Before that date, the defense filed three successive motions to compel DNA-related discovery as to Bantle's DNA reporting errors. At a status conference held on November 22, 2021, the Court determined this case was not trial-ready and recommitted the case to Magistrate Judge Roemer to resolve the DNA-disclosure motions, among other issues. The motions to compel were resolved before Judge Roemer, but Laraba also moved for a Daubert hearing and/or for the Court to either (a) exclude Bantle's expert testimony at trial as unreliable or (b) find her unqualified to testify as an expert due to the nature of her reporting errors. The motion for a Daubert hearing led to further briefing and argument before Judge Roemer.

On February 14, 2023, Magistrate Judge Roemer filed a comprehensive R&R, recommending that this Court deny Laraba's motion for a Daubert hearing and motion to exclude Bantle's testimony. Laraba filed objections (Dkt. No. 161) to the R&R, the Government filed a response in opposition (Dkt. No. 162), and Laraba filed reply papers (Dkt. No. 165). The Court heard oral argument on the objections on April 4, 2023, at which time the Court reserved decision. On June 27, 2023, the Government filed an affidavit (Dkt. No. 172) in response to the Court's Text Order (Dkt. No. 171) inquiring about Bantle's results from proficiency examinations taken in 2022 and the Government's compliance with discovery orders and its disclosure obligations, which Laraba had raised in his papers before this Court.

DISCUSSION

Laraba's primary argument is that Bantle's history of sloppy and inaccurate DNA reporting in other cases renders her conclusions and methodology in the instant case inherently unqualified, unreliable, untrustworthy, and incredible, and therefore the Court, as a gatekeeper, must preclude her from testifying at trial. At a minimum, Laraba argues, the Court should conduct a Daubert hearing. He objects to the R&R, asserting that Judge Roemer erred because he “overlooked the role of courts as gatekeepers” and simply concluded Laraba would have the opportunity to cross-examine Bantle at trial and hire his own expert to challenge Bantle's conclusions. The Government maintains its position that the previous errors go to the weight of Bantle's testimony, not its admissibility.

The admissibility of expert testimony is evaluated under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which requires the district court to make several determinations prior to allowing expert testimony: whether (1) the witness is qualified to be an expert, (2) the proffered opinion is based upon reliable data and methodology, and (3) the expert's testimony on a particular issue will assist the trier of fact. See Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 181, 396-97 (2d Cir. 2005). “While the proponent of expert testimony has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the admissibility requirements of Rule 702 are satisfied . . ., the district court is the ultimate ‘gatekeeper.'” United States v. Williams, 506 F.3d 151, 160 (2d Cir. 2007), citing Fed.R.Evid. 104(a). As part of its gatekeeping function, a trial court must “ensur[e] that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597.

I. Qualifications

Laraba objects to Bantle being qualified as an expert. As such, this Court must first determine the threshold question of whether she is “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Fed.R.Evid. 702. “Courts in the Second Circuit liberally construe the expert qualifications requirement, and generally will not exclude expert testimony provided the expert has educational and experiential qualifications in a general field closely related to the subject matter in question.” I.M. v. United States, 362 F.Supp.3d 161, 192 (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Magistrate Judge Roemer reviewed the Government's expert disclosures and assessed both the totality of Bantle's background, training, and experience, and the proposed subject matter of her anticipated testimony, before recommending that the Court find her qualified to testify as an expert in the field of forensic DNA analysis without a hearing. See Dkt. No. 156, pp. 12-13. Laraba does not challenge Bantle's professional credentials.

Rather, Laraba argues Judge Roemer “overemphasiz[ed]” Bantle's credentials and performance on bi-annual proficiency exams, while failing to account for her “recent pattern of errors” that he argues bear on her qualifications to the extent that her testimony must be precluded. Laraba relies on United States v. Cloud, 576 F.Supp.3d 827 (E.D. Wa. 2021), which is indisputably not binding precedent, in support of the latter argument. In addition to Cloud being out-of Circuit, Judge Roemer found that opinion unpersuasive and distinguishable, and declined to follow it.

In Cloud, after conducting a hearing on the defendant's motion to exclude or limit the testimony of the Government's fingerprint analysis expert, the Eastern District of Washington declined to qualify her as an expert due to a “series of errors in her work-some significant and some less so-which b[ore] on her qualifications.” Cloud, 576 F.Supp.3d at 845-47. As aptly remarked on by Judge Roemer, in doing so, the district court in Cloud “appeared to place the most significance on the proffered expert's difficulties in passing proficiency exams.” Dkt. No. 156, p. 17; see Cloud, 576 F.Supp.3d at 846 (“Extremely telling, in the Fall of 2020, [the Government's expert] failed her annual proficiency test . . .”) (emphasis added), 847 (“[T]he Court cannot in good conscience qualify [the Government's expert] as an expert with the requisite skill to perform fingerprint comparisons when her two most recent proficiency exams either contained an error or required a significant amount of assistance from her supervisor.”). Among other differentiating circumstances between this case and Cloud, Judge Roemer remarked that Bantle “never failed a proficiency test[.]”

Before this Court, Laraba questions whether Bantle has indeed passed every bi-annual proficiency test she has taken while working at the CPS Lab, because while the CPS Lab produced the results for all exams Bantle took through 2021, neither of her two exams from 2022 had been provided to the defense.^[1]Thus, Laraba argues the Court cannot rely on this factor in distinguishing this case from Cloud. Because the Government did not directly respond to Laraba's allegation that it did not turn over those test results (or comment on whether it was required to do so), the Court ordered a supplemental filing from the Government.

The Court finds that, based on the Government's representations, and in conjunction with the Court's review of the record and the exhibits attached to the Government's supplemental filing, Bantle has passed all her proficiency examinations taken at the CPS Lab, to date. See Dkt. Nos. 172-1 (Mar. 2022...