Expert Witness Profiler

Category: Drug Enforcement Expert Witness

  • Drug Enforcement Expert’s Testimony About the Firearm’s Purpose Admitted

    Drug Enforcement Expert’s Testimony About the Firearm’s Purpose Admitted

    Initially, based on information received from a confidential informant (CI), who indicated that Norvell Harris lived with Swanda Collins at 4469 Lake Fairway Drive in Lake Charles and stored a large amount of marijuana in nearby storage unit AA15, the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office (CPSO) initiated an investigation. Following this, detectives then conducted surveillance, observing Harris at the storage unit. Subsequently, a drug-sniffing canine was deployed, leading to a search of unit AA15.

    This search revealed marijuana, heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, and a pistol. Consequently, following this discovery, officers obtained a second search warrant for 4469 Fairway Drive, Lake Charles, Louisiana, where they found two pounds of marijuana, MDMA doses, THC edibles, US currency, and ammunition.

    However, Harris has not been charged with possession of the marijuana, MDMA, THC edibles and the ammunition found at the house, and the ammunition found at the house did not match the pistol found in the storage unit. Ultimately, Harris has been charged with possession to distribute heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.

    The government planned to present DEA Special Agent Chad Berard to testify that the pistol found in storage unit AA15 was used to further drug trafficking. Harris moved to exclude this testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, arguing it was unhelpful, unreliable, and based on improper legal conclusions.

    Drug Enforcement Expert Witness

    DEA Special Agent Chad Berard has been with the Drug Enforcement Administration for twenty-six years. During his tenure with the DEA, Berard has been involved in hundreds of investigations of drug traffickers and drug trafficking organizations. He has conducted hundreds of interviews and thousands of hours of surveillance, listened to more than one hundred hours of phone calls related to investigations of drug traffickers, and has served as the case agent in over one hundred large scale drug trafficking investigations.

    As a law enforcement agent, Beard has interviewed and recruited informants, obtained information about the means of distribution, the amounts and methods of drug distribution, and drug trafficking trends. He has participated in the execution of over one hundred search warrants of residences, stash houses, and other locations where illegal narcotics were found and seized, as well as tools used by distributors, manufacturers and users, such as scales, and drug ledgers.

    Berard has also received training as a DEA Special Agent, attended sixteen (16) weeks of training at the DEA Academy, attended training on complex drug conspiracies, and receives weekly updates on drug trafficking trends ranging from money laundering methods to hidden compartments.

    Gain a comprehensive understanding of Chad Berard’s qualifications and casework history with his Expert Witness Profile report.  

    Discussion by the Court

    Initial Arguments

    Harris moved to exclude DEA Agent Chad Berard’s testimony. He argued that Berard’s proposed expert opinions under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 were unhelpful, unreliable, and were erroneous legal conclusions. Harris specifically contended that Berard’s opinions about the purpose of firearms in drug trafficking and whether the seized drugs were consistent with trafficking were improper statements on the ultimate legal issue and his guilt.

    Analysis

    A. Reliability

    Regarding reliability, the Defendant challenged Special Agent Berard’s methods. Specifically, the Defendant contested Berard’s opinion that the amount and packaging of drugs found indicated drug trafficking and not personal use. However, the Court found that the Defendant did not demonstrate that Berard’s methods for reaching this conclusion were unreliable.
    The Court viewed this opinion as permissible expert testimony. This view stemmed from Berard’s extensive experience over his 26-year career investigating numerous drug trafficking situations and his comparison of this case’s facts to observed patterns in similar situations.

    B. Legal Conclusions

    Harris argued that Berard’s opinions were improper legal conclusions that would mislead the jury. He specifically challenged opinions stating that drug traffickers use firearms for protection and to prevent theft. Harris also challenged the opinion that the pistol’s location near the narcotics suggested it was used to protect and further drug trafficking, not for a lawful purpose. The government admitted that directly stating the firearm “was in furtherance of drug trafficking” would be an improper legal conclusion.

    The Court found that Berard’s opinions, as presented, did not cross the line into improper legal conclusions about Harris’ guilt. The Court viewed Berard’s statements as expert opinions based on his experience in hundreds of drug trafficking investigations. These opinions explained common practices within such operations.

    The Court viewed Berard’s opinion about the proximity of the firearm to where the narcotics are located as a comparison to other narcotics investigations. This was meant to help the jury, not decide Harris’ guilt. The Court will provide the jury with the applicable law and any proposed limiting instructions, which will allow the jury to decide if Defendant is guilty of the indicted charges against him.

    Held

    The Court denied the Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Chad Berard.

    Key Takeaway:

    Ultimately, the Court held that Berard’s opinions as to firearms possessed by drug traffickers and the firearm’s location and proximity to the narcotics were permissible expert opinions. Specifically, these opinions stemmed from Berard’s extensive experience as a Special DEA Agent. Furthermore, the Court clarified that these opinions were distinct from legal conclusions regarding the Defendant’s guilt or a misapplication of the law.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: United States v. Harris
    Doket Number: 2:24cr82
    Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles Division
    Order Date: April 21, 2025
  • Drug Enforcement Expert Witness Allowed To Testify Despite Not Being A Pharmacist

    Drug Enforcement Expert Witness Allowed To Testify Despite Not Being A Pharmacist

    Manes is a pharmacy that has served the Van Buren, Arkansas community for nearly 40 years. AmerisourceBergen is a wholesale distributor of pharmaceutical products, including controlled substances. This dispute arises from AmerisourceBergen’s decision to restrict its sale of controlled substances to Manes. Manes sued AmerisourceBergen for breach of contract, tortious interference with Manes’ business expectancies, defamation, and compelled self-defamation.

    Both parties sought to exclude some of their opponent’s experts. Manes sought to exclude the testimony of James Place and Deborah Komoroski. AmerisourceBergen sought to exclude the testimony of Jack Teitelman. 

    Drug Enforcement Expert Witnesses

    James Place has 27 years of experience working for the United States Drug Enforcement Administration and nearly ten years of doing compliance work in the private sector.

    Get the full story on challenges to James Place’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

    Deborah Komorski works for Cencora, Inc., which is AmerisourceBergen’s parent company. She has eight years’ experience as a pharmacist, twenty-five years’ experience as a Drug Control Agent for the State of Connecticut, and thirteen years’ experience doing compliance and diversion control work for private companies. 

    Fortify your strategy by reviewing a Challenge Study detailing grounds for excluding Deborah Komorski’s expert testimony. 

    Jack Teitelmean worked for the DEA as a special agent for 13 years, and he has worked in other law enforcement capacities for an additional 13 years. For the last seven years, he has worked for a private company which he describes as “a leading Veterinary Industry provider of DEA-compliance and controlled-substance anti-diversion solutions.” 

    Want to know more about the challenges Jack Teitelmean has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

    Discussion by the Court

    James Place

    Manes argued that the Court should exclude Place’s opinions because he was not a pharmacist and his expert report contained opinions about “the practice of pharmacy and how a pharmacist fulfills his/her corresponding responsibility.” Additionally, Manes argued that Place should be excluded under Arkansas law because he could not judge whether a medical professional had deviated from the accepted standard of care.

    The Court held that the Arkansas statute titled “Plaintiff’s burden of proof” Manes relied on did not apply to this case because Manes is the Plaintiff here and this is not an action for negligence. Also, the statute’s definition of medical care provider does not include a drug distributor like AmerisourceBergen. Moreover, Manes has alleged injuries arising out of AmerisourceBergen’s decision to stop selling it controlled substances instead of a medical injury.

    Place’s opinions do not discuss the exercise of pharmacological judgment

    The Court found that Place’s testimony discussed the steps a distributor or government agency might take when investigating possible diversion. Place’s opinions did not question the drugs Manes’ pharmacists dispensed; his opinions questioned the steps the pharmacists took to investigate questionable prescriptions based on red flags (such as commonly diverted substances) before filling the prescriptions. This opinion fell within his decades of experience with investigations and compliance in the public and private sectors.

    Moreover, Manes argued the following opinion is impermissible: “AmerisourceBergen was justified in questioning Plaintiff’s ability to satisfy its corresponding responsibility for the proper dispensing of controlled substances.” The Court held that Place’s opinion is made from the perspective of an outside investigator, not that of a pharmacist challenging Manes’ pharmacist’s pharmacological judgment.

    Some of Manes’ objections are simply disputes over the factual basis for Place’s opinions

    Manes took issue with paragraph 39 of Place’s report. That paragraph read, in part, “[p]roper controls can be accomplished by following common sense, sound professional practice, and proper dispensing procedures.”

    This paragraph is a direct quote from the DEA’s Pharmacist’s Manual. Manes argued that this is an example of where Place “opines as to what pharmacies and pharmacists should or should not do.” The Court held that the paragraph is an example of what the DEA says what a pharmacist should or should not do. In other words, Manes’ argument missed the mark because it challenged the factual basis for Place’s opinions.

    Deborah Komoroski

    Manes next asked the Court to exclude Deborah Komorski because she is testifying on matters outside of her experience. Manes made the same argument as above about Arkansas’s standard of care for pharmacists, which the Court rejected for the same reasons stated above: the statute did not apply to this case.

    Plaintiff objected to Komoroski’s opinions which discussed AmerisourceBergen’s processes when investigating whether a pharmacist carries out their corresponding responsibility. The Court held that these opinions all fall within her decades-long experience as both a pharmacist and diversion control agent.

    Manes argued that not only did Komorski fail to consider all the facts but Komoroski cannot testify as to the applicable standard of care because she never practiced pharmacy in Arkansas. The Court did not find any of these arguments convincing because Komoroski’s opinions did not discuss the standard of care.

    Jack Teitelman

    AmerisourceBergen argued that because Teitelman failed to review a multitude of key sources of information, his testimony should be excluded because it is “so fundamentally unsupported that it can offer no assistance to the jury.” The Court held that while Teitelman’s report may have more thoroughly listed the documents he relied on, that he might base his opinion on different facts than Place does not render his opinion inadmissible.

    AmerisourceBergen argued Teitelman is unaware of the steps in its investigation. However, the Court found that reviewing Teitelman’s report in its entirety reveals that he is aware of various steps AmerisourceBergen took as part of its investigation.

    Teitelman’s report attempts to explain how Ruan V. United Statess, 497 U.S. 450 (2022) applies to the way that AmerisourceBergen and the DEA should evaluate a pharmacist’s corresponding responsibility. The Court held that Teitelman’s testimony about Ruan impermissibly ventured into testimony about legal matters because he applied the Ruan case out of its criminal context.

    The Court did not agree with AmerisourceBergen that Teitelman’s opinions about AmerisourceBergen’s policies were unreliable because they were purely speculative. AmerisourceBergen primarily argued that because Mr. Teitelman did not have personal knowledge of how AmerisourceBergen’s policies had changed over time, his opinions on the topic should be excluded. However, Teitelman based his opinion in part on his previous work with pharmacies that had a relationship with AmerisourceBergen.

    Held

    The Court denied Manes’ motion to exclude the testimony of James Place and Deborah Komoroski but granted in part and denied in part AmerisourceBergen ‘s motion to exclude the testimony of Jack Teitelman.

    Key Takeaways:

    • Place’s opinions all fall within his area of expertise and Arkansas’s statute about the standard of care does not apply in this case. Manes is free to challenge the factual basis of Place’s opinions on cross-examination, but Manes has not identified any reason Place’s testimony is inadmissible.
    • As per Rule 703, Teitelman can base his opinion on facts or data he has been made aware of or personally observed.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Manes’ Pharmacy, Inc. V. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation
    Docket Number: 2:22cv2186
    Court: United States District Court, Arkansas Western
    Order Date: July 23, 2024