This case arises from the international kidnapping of then-seven-year-old Isabella Miller Jenkins in September 2009 by her mother Lisa Miller to keep her away from her other mother, Janet Jenkins. Isabella remains missing to this day.
Plaintiff Janet Jenkins, for herself and as next friend of her daughter Isabella Miller-Jenkins, has brought suit against several individuals and organizations, alleging that they kidnapped and conspired to kidnap Isabella. Plaintiffs asserted claims of commission of, and conspiracy to commit, an intentional tort of kidnapping and conspiracy to violate civil rights.
Plaintiff Janet Jenkins filed a motion to exclude the testimony of expert witness Lawrence Daniel.
Software Development Expert Witness
Lawrence Daniel has over 40 years of experience in software development, data recovery, computer and server diagnosis and repair, and network administration. He began performing digital forensics in 2001 and has thousands of hours of experience in this area.
Discussion by the Court
Defendants retained Lawrence Daniel to analyze a phone call placed by Philip Zodhiates to Matthew Staver, the founder and chairman of Defendant Liberty Counsel. The call was allegedly made while Zodhiates was driving back to Virginia after dropping off Lisa Miller and Isabella Miller-Jenkins in Buffalo, New York, prior to their departure from the United States.
To analyze the call, Daniel reviewed records from nTelos and AT&T. The nTelos record indicated a call length of one minute, though Daniel believed the call duration was shorter and that nTelos rounded its call lengths to the nearest minute. The AT&T records reportedly showed that the call was forwarded to voicemail, that no conversation took place, and that the call lasted nine seconds. Daniel was able to determine this after interpreting certain codes in those records. Daniel also called the receiving phone number to confirm the length of the voicemail greeting. He discovered that the greeting itself was 19 seconds and, having been informed by Defendants’ counsel that the voicemail message had not changed since the Zodhiates call in 2009, concluded that Zodhiates ended the call prior to leaving a message.
Plaintiff’s Objections:
Plaintiff argued that Daniel’s opinion is not based on any technical, scientific, or specialized knowledge. Specifically, she contended that Daniel merely called a phone number and reviewed phone records. To the extent that the AT&T records required knowledge of the company’s codes, Daniel applied a records key. Plaintiff argued that the jury will be capable of using that same key.
Plaintiff further argued that Daniel’s conclusion about whether a message was left is speculative. The call was placed in 2009, and Daniel assessed the length of the voicemail greeting in 2024. Although Defendants’ counsel informed Daniel that the voicemail greeting did not change between 2009 and 2024, and Staver has since attested to that fact in an affidavit, Daniel conceded that there is no scientific method for proving that the voicemail was unchanged between 2009 and 2024. Finally, Plaintiff submitted that Daniel’s testimony is irrelevant since fact that there was a call, standing alone, provides circumstantial evidence supporting her conspiracy claim.
Analysis
Reliability of scientific methods is not at issue here. Furthermore, the record suggested that certain phone records will be admitted, that those records will
include codes, and that explanation of those codes – even through the use of a key – by a qualified professional is likely to assist the jury.
The Court therefore found that Daniel may testify about his conclusions regarding the content of the relevant phone records. Daniel may also testify about the call to Staver’s voicemail. While a representation by counsel that the voicemail did not change since 2009 would be insufficient at trial, Staver’s subsequent affidavit confirming that fact now supports counsel’s assurance. With respect to relevance, the parties may each argue that the call is either significant or insignificant as evidence of a conspiracy. Whether a message was left may add to, or take away from, the persuasiveness of those arguments. Testimony from Daniel on that question will “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence.”
Held
The Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the proposed testimony of Lawrence Daniel.
Key Takeaway:
To be admissible, expert testimony must both rest on a reliable foundation and be relevant to the task at hand.”
Daniel may testify about his conclusions regarding the content of the relevant
phone records. The record suggested that certain phone records will be admitted, that those records will include codes, and that explanation of those codes – even through the use of a key – by a qualified professional is likely to assist the jury.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Jenkins V. Miller Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 2:12cv184 |
| Court: | United States District Court for the District of Vermont |
| Order Date: | February 21, 2025 |
Leave a Reply