Omnibus Response to Defendant Ryan Dales' Motions in Limine — United States v. Ryan E. Dales (Document 96)

Summary

A Government letter response dated November 29, 2024, to Chief Judge George L. Russell, III, filed 11/29/24 as Document 96 in United States v. Ryan E. Dales, Criminal Number: GLR-23-026, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. It responds to the defendant's Corrected Motion in Limine to Exclude Portions of Keith Sokolowski's Testimony (ECF No. 94) and Motion in Limine to Exclude Portions of Hongde Pan's Testimony (ECF No. 93). The Government does not oppose striking certain heroin passages of TFO Sokolowski's Expert Designation but opposes limits on testimony about the potency of fentanyl, about fentanyl production in China, and a blanket restriction on the word "heroin". It also opposes excluding Mr. Pan's analysis of cocaine recovered at the apartment as relevant and intrinsic to the crimes charged. The signature block names Paul A. Riley and Reema Sood.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Omnibus Response to Defendant Ryan Dales' Motions in Limine — United States v. Ryan E. Dales (Document 96).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/gov-uscourts-mdd-529188-96-0-533ade2250/, SHA-256 b258a34686963e180d1c8fe065a2a5e820c4416d3a302990d60d9a14d930550b.

Full text

Case 1:23-cr-00026-GLR Document 96 Filed 11/29/24 Page 1 of 3

U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
District of Maryland

Reema Sood Suite 400 DIRECT: 410-209-4943
Assistant United States Attorney 36 S. Charles Street MAIN: 410-209-4800
Reema.Sood@usdoj.gov Baltimore, MD 21201-3119 FAX: 410-962-3091

November 29, 2024

The Honorable George L. Russell, III
Chief United States District Judge
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
101 W. Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201

Re: United States v. Ryan E. Dales, Criminal Number: GLR-23-026
Omnibus Response to Defendant Ryan Dales’ Motions in Limine

Dear Judge Russell:

The United States of America respectfully submits this Response to Defendant Ryan E.
Dales’ (1) Corrected Motion in Limine to Exclude Portions of Keith Sokolowski’s Testimony
(ECF No. 94) and (2) Motion in Limine to Exclude Portions of Hongde Pan’s Testimony (ECF
No. 93).

First, Defendant moves to preclude TFO Keith Sokolowski, the Government’s proposed
drug trafficking expert, from testifying about heroin, arguing that the bulk of the drug evidence
recovered in this case was fentanyl, not heroin, and therefore any testimony regarding heroin
should be barred on simple relevance grounds. (Sokolowski Mot. at 2, ECF No. 94). Specifically,
Defendant highlights certain portions of TFO Sokolowski’s Expert Designation, which he
contends improperly discusses heroin. (See Sokolowski Mot., Exhibit 1 at 1–4, ECF No. 94-1).

The Government notes that it does not intend to question TFO Sokolowski substantively
about heroin. As such, the Government does not oppose Defendant’s objections as to the following
portions of TFO Sokolowski’s Expert Designation:

Heroin is a highly addictive drug, and it is a rapidly acting opioid.
It is an opiate (narcotic) drug processed from morphine and
extracted from certain poppy plants. Heroin comes in a white or
brownish powder, or a black sticky substance known as “black tar
heroin.”
....
Although in the past heroin mixtures were sold to end users without
other controlled substances, in recent years fentanyl . . . has
increasingly been found in heroin seizures. In recent years, it has
been rare to seize heroin without fentanyl contained in it and more

1
Case 1:23-cr-00026-GLR Document 96 Filed 11/29/24 Page 2 of 3

common to seize fentanyl mixtures that are sold to customers who
once exclusively bought heroin mixtures.

Nonetheless, the Government opposes portions of Defendant’s Motion. Defendant seeks
to preclude TFO Sokolowski from testifying about the potency of fentanyl, objecting in particular
to a line in TFO Sokolowski’s Expert Designation that reads, “[Fentanyl] is approximately 100
times more potent than morphine and 50 times more potent than heroin as an analgesic.”
(Sokolowski Mot., Exhibit 1 at 1). The Government objects to any such limitation. Such testimony
is not intended to substantively discuss heroin, or morphine, for that matter. Instead, the references
to these other drugs are intended to simply contextualize the potency of fentanyl, which the
Government alleges Defendant possessed with the intent to distribute, for the jury. Such
contextualization is relevant, factual, and not unfairly prejudicial.

Defendant also seeks to exclude testimony regarding the following portion of TFO
Sokolowski’s Expert Designation:

Similarly, it is becoming increasingly common for drug traffickers
in China to create laboratories where they can produce fentanyl
cheaply and in bulk. After the bulk quantities of fentanyl and heroin
are produced, the product is then transported to various bulk drug
traffickers that operate in the United States.

(Sokolowski Mot., Exhibit 1 at 2). The Government again opposes such a limitation. The
Government can proffer to the Court that the evidence will show that Defendant purchased and
attempted to purchase fentanyl from producers in China. Indeed, in Telegram chats recovered
from Defendant’s phone, he and others discuss the purchase of fentanyl and other drugs from
China. Again, the Government does not intend to substantively introduce evidence regarding the
purchase of heroin from China. However, Defendant’s objection to such testimony is overly
broad—evidence regarding bulk purchases of fentanyl is particularly relevant here and should not
be excluded.

Finally, the Government opposes a blanket restriction on the use of the word “heroin” at
all during the trial. As explained above, heroin may be incidentally referenced to contextualize
the evidence germane to the case here. Moreover, heroin may be mentioned during TFO
Sokolowski’s testimony to the extent he offers an explanation of the drugs that he has previously
investigated during his law enforcement career. As such, a broad prohibition of any reference to
heroin is overly restrictive.

Next, Defendant moves to exclude portions of Hongde Pan’s Testimony. (See Pan Mot.,
ECF No. 93). Hongde Pan is the chemist who tested all items of suspected CDS seized from
Dales’ apartment. Defendant specifically seeks to preclude Mr. Pan from testifying about his
analysis related to cocaine recovered at Dales’ apartment as irrelevant, noting that it was under
possession with the intent to distribute quantities. The Government opposes.

The Government does not allege that Defendant possessed with the intent to distribute
cocaine. Still, the Government contends that evidence related to the cocaine is relevant—the drugs
were found at Dales’ apartment, seized by FBI, and tested by Mr. Pan. Further, the Government

2
Case 1:23-cr-00026-GLR Document 96 Filed 11/29/24 Page 3 of 3

proffers that the evidence will show that Dales’ apartment contained substantial packaging
materials, scales, tools used to cut drugs, ammunition, and two firearms. The cocaine recovered
is relevant within the broader context of Defendant’s trafficking scheme.

Additionally, although Defendant does not raise Rule 404(b) in his Motion, the
Government contends that the cocaine is admissible as intrinsic to the crimes charged. “The
majority of circuits have held that Rule 404(b) applies only to limits on the admission of other acts
extrinsic to the one charged. Under that rule, acts intrinsic to the alleged crime do not fall under
Rule 404(b)’s limitations on admissible evidence.” United States v. Chin, 83 F.3d 83, 87–88 (4th
Cir. 1996). “The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has consistently held that
acts intrinsic to the alleged crime do not fall under Rule 404(b)’s limitations on admissible
evidence.” United States v. Myrick, 663 F.Supp.3d 499, 505 (E.D.Va. 2023) (cleaned up). “Other
criminal acts are intrinsic when they are inextricably intertwined or both acts are part of a single
criminal episode or the other acts were necessary preliminaries to the crime charged.” Chin, 83
F.3d at 88. Evidence is also intrinsic when it “serve[s] to complete the story of the crime on trial.”
Id. “Evidence is inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense if it
forms an integral and natural part of the witness’s accounts of the circumstances surrounding the
offenses for which the defendant was indicted.” Myrick, 663 F.Supp.3d at 505.

Such is the case here. SA Patrick Fong, the seizing agent during the execution of the search
warrant at Dales’ apartment, packaged any suspected CDS found at Dales’ apartment for
assessment by the lab. The cocaine was part of that seizure, was transported to the lab, and was
assessed by Mr. Pan for its chemical composition. It was further found within an apartment that
contained a substantial amount of fentanyl, the drug charged, as well as significant items related
to the packaging and distribution of illegal drugs. Accordingly, the cocaine is “an integral and
natural part of the witness’s accounts of the circumstances” surrounding Dales’ charges. It is a
part of the immediate context of the same criminal episode, and should not be excluded on
relevance or 404(b) grounds. 1

Very truly yours,

Erek L. Barron
United States Attorney

By: ___________________________
Paul A. Riley
Reema Sood
Assistant United States Attorneys

cc: Richard Bardos, Esq.

1
See, e.g., United States v. Thompson, No. 23-CR-00358(1) (JMB/TNL), 2024 WL 4407004, at *2
(D.Minn. Oct. 5, 2024) (denying defendant’s motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence of uncharged
drugs found in defendant’s possession as intrinsic to the defendant’s underlying possession of fentanyl with
intent to distribute, felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug
trafficking offenses).

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.mdd.529188.96.0.pdf
Size: 196,845 bytes
SHA-256: b258a34686963e180d1c8fe065a2a5e820c4416d3a302990d60d9a14d930550b
Our copy: gov.uscourts.mdd.529188.96.0.pdf
Original: No public link identified.