{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "393",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 393 Filed 10/29/21 Page 6 of 10\n\nIn turn, if a prosecution witness offers expert opinion testimony under Rule 702, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(1)(G) requires the government to make significant and substantive pretrial disclosures. The government must disclose \"a written summary of any testimony that the government intends to use . . . during its case-in-chief at trial.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(1)(G). The summary \"must [also] describe the witness's opinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions, and the witness's qualifications.\" Id.\n\nThe government has not endorsed as expert witnesses under Rule 702 or made any pretrial disclosures for these witnesses under Rule 16(1)(g). Accordingly, none of these witnesses can offer expert opinion testimony at trial. That means these witnesses should not be permitted to offer testimony on any of the following subjects:\n- Any expert \"overview\" testimony about the case, its origins, and the investigation. E.g., United States v. Brooks, 736 F.3d 921, 930-31 (10th Cir. 2013) (overview testimony can include improper expert opinion testimony).1\n\n1 Overview testimony is susceptible to abuse because it strays into matters that are reserved for the jury, such as opinions about a defendant's guilt or a witness's credibility. An overview witness, for example, might express opinions about the defendant's truthfulness at certain times or [her] likelihood of being involved in a scheme or crime, thus usurping the jury's role in making fact findings based on the credibility and demeanor of witnesses with personal knowledge. Other potential problems include the government's ability (1) to spin the evidence in its favor before it is admitted (assuming it is ever admitted), (2) to give its official imprimatur to certain evidence, and (3) to allow its witnesses (usually law enforcement) to testify on matters about which they have no personal knowledge or that are based on hearsay.\nBrooks, 736 F.3d at 930.\n\n[S]uch testimony raises the very real specter that the jury verdict could be influenced by statements of fact or credibility assessments in the overview but not in evidence. There is also the possibility that later testimony might be different than what the overview witness assumed; objections could be sustained or the witness could change his or her story. Overview testimony by government agents is\n\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00005752",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 393 Filed 10/29/21 Page 6 of 10",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In turn, if a prosecution witness offers expert opinion testimony under Rule 702, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(1)(G) requires the government to make significant and substantive pretrial disclosures. The government must disclose \"a written summary of any testimony that the government intends to use . . . during its case-in-chief at trial.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(1)(G). The summary \"must [also] describe the witness's opinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions, and the witness's qualifications.\" Id.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government has not endorsed as expert witnesses under Rule 702 or made any pretrial disclosures for these witnesses under Rule 16(1)(g). Accordingly, none of these witnesses can offer expert opinion testimony at trial. That means these witnesses should not be permitted to offer testimony on any of the following subjects:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "- Any expert \"overview\" testimony about the case, its origins, and the investigation. E.g., United States v. Brooks, 736 F.3d 921, 930-31 (10th Cir. 2013) (overview testimony can include improper expert opinion testimony).1",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Overview testimony is susceptible to abuse because it strays into matters that are reserved for the jury, such as opinions about a defendant's guilt or a witness's credibility. An overview witness, for example, might express opinions about the defendant's truthfulness at certain times or [her] likelihood of being involved in a scheme or crime, thus usurping the jury's role in making fact findings based on the credibility and demeanor of witnesses with personal knowledge. Other potential problems include the government's ability (1) to spin the evidence in its favor before it is admitted (assuming it is ever admitted), (2) to give its official imprimatur to certain evidence, and (3) to allow its witnesses (usually law enforcement) to testify on matters about which they have no personal knowledge or that are based on hearsay.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Brooks, 736 F.3d at 930.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "[S]uch testimony raises the very real specter that the jury verdict could be influenced by statements of fact or credibility assessments in the overview but not in evidence. There is also the possibility that later testimony might be different than what the overview witness assumed; objections could be sustained or the witness could change his or her story. Overview testimony by government agents is",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005752",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 393",
      "736 F.3d 921",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005752"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the rules of evidence and expert testimony. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible."
}