On June 24, 2023, at approximately 3:08 PM, Colter Bay Rangers were notified “of an illegally landed helicopter at the base of Moran Creek in Moran Bay.” According to the probable cause statement, Rangers G’Sell and Cardenas responded and found “a Eurocopter Helicopter (N708SD) . . . [with] two individuals outside the helicopter.” After contacting the Defendant, the Rangers informed him that he had landed within Grand Teton National Park.
Peter Smith, pilot in command of the white Eurocopter (N708SD) aircraft determined that he landed the flight to avoid further exposure to high-risk weather conditions.
Defendant was charged with two separate violations of the Code of Federal Regulations under 36 C.F.R. 2.17 for operating an aircraft on lands/waters other than designated areas and failure to comply with Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] regulations (i.e. having physical possession of a pilot certificate or making it readily accessible in the aircraft).
On October 16, 2023, Defendant filed his notice of intent to offer the expert testimony of Mark Warren, (Designation), “an airline pilot flying for American Airlines”.
On the other hand, the government sought to preclude any testimony or evidence presented regarding Warren’s statements “related to legal assertions or analysis of domestic law and providing testimony related to the credibility or veracity of any party or to vouch for the credibility of . . . Defendant or any witness.”
Aviation Expert Witness
Mark Warren is currently an airline pilot flying for American Airlines. During his tenure with American Airlines’ predecessor, Mark Warren served as Flight Operations Regulatory Compliance officer.
Warren has over 45 years of experience as a general aviation pilot flying the Colorado Rockies and other mountain regions in the United States.
Discussion by the Court
The government pointed to the expert witness Notice provided by Defendant for Warren, the statements within the Notice focused on bolstering Defendant’s version of facts, dictated how the Court should interpret FAA regulations in relation to Defendant’s version of facts, and highlighted the lack of proper disclosure of expert opinions or reports. To sum it up,the government argued that the Court should not permit any testimony offered regarding FAA regulations based on the role the Court holds in judicial proceedings.
Defendant asserted that Warren had an extensive background in FAA regulations. Defendant argued that there was no basis for limiting Warren’s testimony since he will only be “stating [what FAA regulations] exist and what they are.”
The Court noted that Warren was not present in the Park when Rangers contacted Defendant, nor was he in the aircraft when Defendant flew his helicopter on June 24, 2023.
The Court agreed when the government stated that the insufficiency of Defendant’s disclosure was apparent on the face of [the expert witness] Notice—it contained few details of Warren’s opinions to be elicited, no facts [or] data relied upon, and it was devoid of the principles and methods used to reach the undisclosed conclusions. In other words, the Notice was lacking and failed to provide adherence to Rule 16(b)(1)(C).
The Court noted that if the conclusory statements in the Notice were indicative of Warren’s testimony, then his testimony would be improper.
The Court limited Warren’s testimony to the hypothetical scenario, his expertise as a pilot. It did not allow him to testify about the application of the FAA regulations in this case. The Court also did not permit him to testify about facts he had not witnessed.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part the testimony of Mark Warren.
Key Takeaways:
- Insufficiency of Disclosure: The Court agreed when the government stated that the insufficiency of Defendant’s disclosure was apparent on the face of [the expert witness] Notice—it contained few details of Warren’s opinions to be elicited, no facts [or] data relied upon, and it was devoid of the principles and methods used to reach the undisclosed conclusions. In other words, the Notice was lacking and failed to provide adherence to Rule 16(b)(1)(C). It was insufficient to have put the government on notice of what the witness would testify to, the opinions he held, and whether such were the product of true expertise and reliable application of principles used in the field.
- Legal Assertions: It is not an expert’s role to tell the Court what federal regulations apply, or how they are interpreted, rather that is the role of the Court.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | USA V. Smith |
| Docket Number: | L:23po382 |
| Court: | United States District Court for the District of Wyoming |
| Order Date: | April 03, 2024 |
Leave a Reply