Government’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Qualify Agent as Expert — United States v. Dean A. Tran, No. 23-10299-FDS (Dkt. 99, D. Mass.)

Summary

The government's opposition, Dkt. 99 in United States v. Dean A. Tran, Criminal No. 23-10299-FDS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, asks the court to deny Tran's motion to qualify Special Agent Rosen as an expert (Dkt. No. 97). It argues that the motion does not specify what subject matter or opinion it seeks to elicit, so it meets none of the three prongs of Rule 702, citing Samaan v. St. Joseph Hosp. and Bogosian v. Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., Inc. The government also calls the motion another attempt to introduce legal opinion testimony on Tran's eligibility for PUA, pointing to Tran's earlier proffer at Dkt. No. 84. It is signed (/s/) by Assistant U.S. Attorney Dustin Chao for Acting United States Attorney Joshua S. Levy, with Assistant U.S. Attorney John T. Mulcahy also listed, and carries a certificate of service dated September 8, 2024.

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

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) Criminal No. 23-10299-FDS
)
DEAN A. TRAN, )
)
Defendant )

GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUALIFY AGENT AS
EXPERT

The government opposes defendant Tran’s motion seeking to qualify Special Agent Rosen

as an expert (Dkt. No. 97) (hereinafter, “Def. Mot.”). Because the Def. Mot. fails to specify what

subject matter and opinion it seeks to elicit from Agent Rosen, it should be denied.

TRAN Meets None of the Necessary Requirements for Rule 702

Under Rule 702, district courts considering the admissibility of
expert testimony must “act as gatekeepers, ensuring that an expert’s
proffered testimony ‘both rests on a reliable foundation and is
relevant to the task at hand.’” Samaan v. St. Joseph Hosp., 670 F.3d
21, 31 (1st Cir. 2012) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597). That
gatekeeping function requires that the court consider three sets of
issues: (1) whether the proposed expert is qualified by “knowledge,
skill, experience, training or education”; (2) whether the subject
matter of the proposed testimony properly concerns “scientific,
technical, or other specialized knowledge”; and (3) “whether the
testimony [will be] helpful to the trier of fact, i.e., whether it rests
on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the facts of the case.”
Bogosian v. Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., Inc., 104 F.3d 472, 476 (1st
Cir. 1997) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702) (internal quotation marks
omitted).

In re: Zofran, 2019 WL 5685269 (D. Mass. 2019).

At the outset, Tran fails to identify what opinion he seeks to elicit from Agent Rosen.

Without specifying the subject matter that Tran intends to elicit, it cannot be determined whether
Agent Rosen possesses the necessary experience and training to testify as to such matter.

Therefore, defendant Tran has failed to meet the first prong necessary for expert qualification.

Second, because Tran has failed to identify the subject matter for which he intends to

introduce expert testimony, it is impossible to determine whether the subject matter even concerns

Agent Rosen’s area of purported expertise. Tran has thus failed to meet the second prong

necessary for expert testimony.

And third, because Tran identifies no subject matter for his proposed expert testimony, it

is impossible determine whether Agent Rosen’s proposed expert testimony will even be helpful to

the trier of fact, i.e., resting upon a reliable foundation and relevant to the facts of the case. Because

defendant Tran fails to meet any of the three prongs required by Rule 702, his motion should be

denied.

Tran’s Motion is Another Attempt to Introduce Legal Opinion Testimony

Based on defendant Tran’s previous filing, “Proffer Regarding Tran’s Eligibility for PUA

Benefits,” (Dkt. No. 84), it appears as if Tran is seeking a second bite at his failed attempt to

introduce impermissible legal opinion testimony in the case. In other words, he is attempting to

have Agent Rosen testify that the defendant “is eligible [to receive PUA] despite ‘working’ as a

contact consultant and receiving income.” See DE 84 at 4.

For the same reasons that such testimony is improper and inadmissible – i.e., Tran is

seeking to have Agent Rosen opine as to a factual determination for the jury (see government’s

response to DE 84 at DE 88 at 2) – defendant’s motion to qualify Agent Rosen as an expert to

offer such testimony should be denied. Moreover, to the extent that defendant Tran is seeking to

usurp the role of the Court in testifying as to a legal opinion – i.e., a finding that Tran was eligible

to receive PUA under the facts at bar – this too is improper and should be denied.

2
Conclusion

Therefore, and for all the foregoing reasons, Tran’s motion to qualify Special Agent Rosen

should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

JOSHUA S. LEVY
Acting United States Attorney

By: /s/ Dustin Chao
DUSTIN CHAO
JOHN T. MULCAHY
Assistant U.S. Attorneys

Certificate of Service

I certify that, on September 8, 2024, this document was sent electronically to the registered
participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) and mailed to the defendant via
U.S. mail or other postage delivery service.

/s/ Dustin Chao
Dustin Chao

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.mad.263782.99.0.pdf
Size: 141,393 bytes
SHA-256: 04bce237e6c1e47a4bb5368eee4613044245942f6b1b1ffc268b13bdd35515b2
Our copy: gov.uscourts.mad.263782.99.0.pdf
Original: archive.org