Order granting 73 Motion in Limine as to Casey David Crowther — USA v. Crowther (Dkt. 100, M.D. Fla. No. 2:20-mj-01094, docketed in No. 2:20-cr-00114)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida · No. 2:20-cr-00114 · Doc. 100 · 2021-03-16 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
FORT MYERS DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 
VS. 
CASE NO: 2:20-cr-114-JES-MRM 
CASEY DAVID CROWTHER 
 
 
ORDER 
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion In 
Limine to Permit Presence of Rebuttal Expert Witness in the 
Courtroom (Doc. #73), filed on March 8, 2021.  The government’s 
Response (Doc. #89) was filed on March 15, 2021.  Also before the 
Court is the government’s Motion in Limine to Prevent Testimony of 
Inadequately Disclosed Expert (Doc. #79) filed on March 11, 2021.  
Defendant’s Opposition (Doc. #81) was filed on March 12, 2021.   
In the first motion defendant essentially seeks to excuse his 
expert witness form the normal rule sequestering witnesses at 
trial.  The motion will be granted, and the witness will be allowed 
to be present in the courtroom for all proceedings. 
In the second motion the government seeks an in limine order 
preventing that same defense expert from testifying because her 
disclosure as an expert was untimely and the contents of 
defendant’s expert disclosure is insufficient under Fed. R. Crim. 
P. 16(b)(1)(C).  (Doc. #79, p. 6.)  While the Court agrees with 
the government that the expert is not a “rebuttal” witness, the 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 100     Filed 03/16/21     Page 1 of 2 PageID 558

 
- 2 - 
 
Court finds that given the continuing discovery being provided by 
the government the disclosure of timely.  The Court also finds 
that the Rule 16(b)(1)(C) disclosure is sufficient under the 
circumstances. 
Counsel is reminded that a denial of a motion in limine to 
exclude evidence is not a ruling which admits any particular 
evidence.  Thus, while the expert testimony is not excluded, the 
Court makes no determination of the admissibility of any 
anticipated testimony from the witness. 
Accordingly, it is hereby 
ORDERED: 
1. Defendant’s Motion In Limine to Permit Presence of Rebuttal 
Expert Witness in the Courtroom (Doc. #73) is GRANTED. 
2. The Government’s Motion in Limine to Prevent Testimony of 
Inadequately Disclosed Expert (Doc. #79) is DENIED. 
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this   16th   day 
of March, 2021. 
 
 
 
 
Copies: 
Counsel of Record 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 100     Filed 03/16/21     Page 2 of 2 PageID 559

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.381779.100.0.pdf

Size

117,718 bytes

SHA-256

922a773f62ec577b2c01fbae8cbc17df3e822a8122cbc284bc4236a0b4ca98f4

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.381779.100.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)