Government's Opposition to Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony — U.S. v. Merritts

Full text

       Case 1:25-cr-00076-JMC          Document 30       Filed 11/25/25     Page 1 of 4




                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                    :
                                            :
              v.                            :       Case No. 25-cr-00076-JMC
                                            :
CORTNEY MERRITTS,                           :
                                            :
                      Defendant.            :


      UNITED STATES’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
                     TO PROHIBIT THE GOVERNMENT
            FROM INTRODUCING EXPERT TESTIMONY AT TRIAL

       The United States of America respectfully opposes Defendant Cortney Merritts’s (the

“Defendant”) Motion in Limine to Prohibit the Government from Introducing Expert Testimony

at Trial (ECF No. 22). As explained below, the exhibits at issue constitute summary charts that

meets all the requirements for admission under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 (“Rule 1006”), and

they may be introduced by the witness who prepared them. The charts do not “present the need for

expert testimony and/or incorporate expert opinions,” ECF No. 22 at 2. Accordingly, the

Defendant’s Motion should be denied.

I.     Relevant Procedural Background

       On November 7, 2025, the Defendant filed a Motion in Limine to Prohibit the Government

from Introducing Expert Testimony at Trial. In his motion, the Defendant requests the Court to

exclude testimony about “some of the proposed exhibits” on the basis that they “appear to present

the need for expert opinion testimony and/or incorporate expert opinions.” ECF 22 at 2.

       The same day, but prior to considering or responding to the Defendant’s motion, the United

States filed a Motion in Limine to Admit Certain Evidence that included four exhibits summarizing

voluminous records, as authorized by Rule 1006. ECF No. 23.
          Case 1:25-cr-00076-JMC         Document 30        Filed 11/25/25     Page 2 of 4




II.       The Defendant’s Motion Should be Denied because the Proposed Exhibits Are Admissible
          Pursuant to Rule 1006 and No Expert Testimony will be Required or Elicited.
          Although the Defendant did not indicate the testimony he seeks to preclude or the exhibits

to which he objects, given the nature of his motion and his prior objections to exhibits

communicated to the Government, it appears that he is objecting to testimony about two exhibits

that summarize voluminous records. Specifically, the Defendant appears to be objecting to

Government Exhibits 38 and 40 (attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively), which are two

spreadsheets breaking down the Defendant’s expenses by category for 2019, 2020, and 2021, for

example, by “cash withdrawals,” “food/restaurants,” “hotels,” and “moving supplies.”1

          For the reasons already addressed in the United States’ motion (ECF No. 23), the proposed

summary exhibits, and testimony about them, are admissible pursuant to Rule 1006. Further, as is

also asserted therein, the United States is aware that the witness who prepared the exhibits and

who will testify about them (a forensic accountant employed by the FBI) may not offer inferences

that should be drawn from the summaries, and the United States will instruct that witness not to

provide any improper opinion or inferential testimony in relation to those exhibits, thus assuaging

the Defendant’s concerns. ECF No. 23 at 6.



1
 The Government provided three additional summary exhibits to the Defendant. To date, the
Defendant has not raised any objections to those exhibits and thus the United States does not
understand them to be encompassed by the Defendant’s motion. They are:
          Government Exhibit 36: A table showing the Defendant’s NFCU banking activity for
           2019, including, among other things, starting balance, money in, money out, ending
           balance, and average balance.
          Government Exhibit 37: A table showing the Defendant’s NFCU banking activity for
           2020, including, among other things, starting balance, money in, money out, ending
           balance, and average balance.
          Government Exhibit 39: A chart showing the Defendant’s NFCU account’s daily
           balance from January 1, 2019, through July 11, 2022, and identifying the balances on the
           dates that the Defendant submitted loan applications and received loan proceeds.

                                                  2
        Case 1:25-cr-00076-JMC           Document 30         Filed 11/25/25       Page 3 of 4




        Contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, there was no need for the United States to provide

expert notice in respect to the exhibits that appear to be at issue. As the case law cited in the United

States’ motion makes clear, such exhibits are regularly admitted into evidence without expert

testimony. For example, as may be particularly pertinent here, in United States v. Abou-Khatwa,

40 F.4th 666, 685 (D.C. Cir. 2022), the D.C. Circuit found that a forensic accountant who was not

qualified as an expert did not exceed the scope of proper summary witness testimony in an

insurance broker’s health care fraud prosecution when she categorized client employees based

solely on the broker’s own invoices to its clients. The Court further found that “[c]ross-referencing

invoices to identify the differences between them simply requires lining up and comparing

information already provided in the invoices themselves” and was not a prohibited inference. Id.

Further, in United States v. Hemphill, 514 F.3d 1350, 1358 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the D.C. Circuit

concluded that it was not error for the district court to allow a government auditor who was not

qualified as an expert to testify about charts he prepared based on documents he reviewed even

though he used his accounting skills to prepare the charts and performed calculations in preparing

the charts.

        As the Defendant has not specifically identified the nature of the testimony to which he

objects, the United States reserves the right to submit supplemental briefing, should it be required,

after a hearing on this matter.




                                                   3
       Case 1:25-cr-00076-JMC          Document 30      Filed 11/25/25    Page 4 of 4




                                        CONCLUSION

       For the reasons stated in the United States’ prior motion and above, the United States

requests the Court authorize the United States to admit the summary charts through the forensic

accountant who prepared them pursuant to Rule 1006 and deny the Defendant’s motion to preclude

testimony about the summary charts.

                                            Respectfully submitted,

                                            JEANINE FERRIS PIRRO
                                            UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

                                      By:           /s/ Emily A. Miller
                                            EMILY A. MILLER (D.C. Bar No. 462077)
                                            Assistant United States Attorney
                                            United States Attorney’s Office
                                            District of Columbia
                                            601 D Street NW
                                            Washington, DC 20530
                                            Office: (202) 252-6988




                                               4


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.dcd.278640.30.0.pdf

Size

162,306 bytes

SHA-256

f9e5c730638800f0e69bcebfd4a11e41452212903ed80075385b67ece6ce5cf0

Our copy

gov.uscourts.dcd.278640.30.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)