Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Indictment

  • Banking Expert Witness Not Allowed to Opine on the Materiality of Documents Submitted

    Banking Expert Witness Not Allowed to Opine on the Materiality of Documents Submitted

    A grand jury indicted Rasta Khalid Walid (“Walid”) on 17 counts, including failure to pay legal child support, bank fraud, false statements to a bank, engaging in monetary transactions, and false, fictitious, and fraudulent claims.

    Walid filed a notice disclosing the proposed testimony of two expert witnesses he intended to use at trial:

    1. Conor Newman, a certified public accountant, offers testimony regarding issues of Walid’s use of general accounting principles and Walid’s understanding of the tax code and regulations.
    2. Steve Bryant, a banking and paycheck protection program (“PPP”) expert, offers testimony regarding issues related to PPP loans.

    In response, the Government filed a motion in limine to exclude Walid’s expert testimony of Conor Newman and Steve Bryant.

    Banking Expert Witness

    Accounting Expert Witness

    Conor Newman is a Certified Public Accountant with Boyle, Deveny, and Meyer, a Montana accounting firm that provides consulting and tax services across the United States. He is responsible for services in the areas of compiled financial statements, tax consulting and compliance, and accounting system software consulting.

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

    Banking Expert Witness

    Steve Bryant is the Vice President of Commercial Lending at First Security Bank of Missoula, a division of Glacier Bank.

    Bryant has been in commercial lending since 2008. In 2020, Bryant played a critical role in reviewing and approving or declining Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    The Court ruled in part from the bench on the scope of expert testimony. It allowed the parties to reserve further objections during the trial. The Court sought to clarify the scope of expert testimony at trial.

    Conor Newman

    Walid sought to elicit testimony from Newman regarding issues of Walid’s use of general accounting principles, the complexity of the tax code, and the procedural requirements for submissions like Walid’s. Newman made several findings in his report that addressed Walid’s mental state during the preparation of the report. Some of Walid’s charges requires the government to prove that Walid knew the claim was false, fictitious, or fraudulent. Newman sought to testify that Walid “held the incorrect belief” that Walid thought he had properly filed the forms. However, the Court held that Newman’s testimony with regard to Walid’s knowledge of whether he knew what he was filing was potentially fraudulent properly would be limited.

    The Court held that Newman could testify to what Walid’s filings looked like compared to others in similar circumstances for the jury to make inferences about Walid’s state of mind at the time he filed his taxes. The Court held that Walid may also testify to his own experience about what he knew at the time the claims were filed but may not use Newman to convey to the jury, Walid’s state of mind at the time he prepared his taxes.

    Steve Bryant

    Walid also sought to elicit testimony from Bryant regarding issues related to Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans. Specifically, Bryant sought to testify about documents relevant to approving or denying PPP loans and offer an opinion on the submissions for PPP loans from Walid to certain banks.

    The Government contended that Bryant should not be allowed to testify to the materiality of what Walid submitted. Count 15 in the Indictment, requires Walid to have made statements that were “material” and “had a natural tendency to influence or were capable of influencing” a financial institution. The parties agree that this testimony properly may be limited through objection at trial and instructing the jury on the legal definition of “material”.

    The Court allowed Walid’s expert to testify based on their expert opinion on a review of Walid’s submissions to the Internal Revenue Service and financial institutions, but Walid’s proposed experts shall not testify to Walid’s willfulness or Walid’s personal knowledge of filing fraudulent, fictitious, or false claims. The Court reserves ruling on any other expert testimony until trial.

    Held

    The Court granted in part the Government’s motion in limine as follows:

    1. Walid’s expert Newman shall not testify to whether Walid knew the claim Walid filed was false, fictitious or fraudulent.

    2. Walid’s experts shall not testify to an ultimate issue of the crime charged.

    3. Walid’s expert Bryant shall not testify to Walid’s intent to defraud any financial institution.

    4. Walid’s expert Bryant shall not testify to the materiality of documents submitted by Walid to any financial institution.

    Key Takeaway:

    The Court allowed Newman to testify about Walid’s use of general accounting principles and Walid’s understanding of the tax code and regulations but prohibited him from opining on Walid’s mental state or willfulness in filing fraudulent claims. Similarly, the Court allowed Bryant to discuss documents and processes related to Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans but barred him from testifying about Walid’s intent to defraud financial institutions or the materiality of submitted documents. These limitations preserved the jury’s role in determining Walid’s intent his state of mind.

    Case Details:

    Case caption: United States v. Walid
    Docket Number: 6:23cr12
    Court: United States District Court for the District of Montana, Helena Division
    Dated: January 17, 2025
  • Elections Expert Witness Barred from Providing Opinions on the Interpretation of Campaign Finance Laws

    Elections Expert Witness Barred from Providing Opinions on the Interpretation of Campaign Finance Laws

    In March 2023, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, indicted Donald Trump on 34 charges tied to the hush money payments, accusing him of “falsifying New York business records to conceal damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters before and after the 2016 election.”

    It all started when the Wall Street Journal reported on certain payments Michael Cohen, former Trump attorney and a key witness in Trump’s hush money trial made to adult film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election.

    Daniels and Karen McDougal, a Playboy model, came forward with unflattering stories about alleged affairs with Trump during the 2016 election. Cohen admitted that he obtained a line of credit on his home to make a payment of $130,000 to Daniels for a nondisclosure agreement about her encounters with Trump while National Enquirer’s parent company, American Media Inc., paid McDougal $150,000 for the rights to her story. Trump denied both affairs. He initially denied any knowledge of the payments, but he later admitted in a carefully worded tweet that he made them to Cohen. Cohen and AMI have both admitted they broke laws by making these payments.

    Defendant introduced Bradley Smith to opine on the interpretation and application of federal campaign finance laws during the proceedings.

    Elections Expert Witness

    Bradley Alan Smith teaches Election Law at the Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio. He previously served as commissioner, vice chairman, and chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) between 2000 and 2005. He has held prior visiting appointments at Princeton University and West Virginia University.

    Smith’s writings on campaign finance and other election issues have appeared in the Yale Law Journal, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, the Georgetown Law Journal, the Harvard Journal of Legislation, the Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy, and other academic journals.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Key Witnesses and Evidence

    Prosecutors showed checks and ledgers demonstrating payments from Trump’s company to his former attorney, including a handwritten note outlining a payment plan for Cohen. David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer, admitted to working with Cohen in order to hide unflattering information. The witness list for this hush money case also included former White House counsellor Hope Hicks. The government wanted Hicks to testify because she’d had conversations with both Trump and Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney, about Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels.

    When Cohen testified about his involvement in the hush money case, the judge explicitly told jurors that Trump could not be convicted based solely on Cohen’s testimony. Trump did not testify. The judge instructed the jury that Trump’s decision must not be used as a factor in their deliberations.

    The judge overseeing the case, Juan Merchan, expanded a gag order on Trump after the former president attacked Merchan’s daughter on social media. He fined the Defendant a total of $10,000 for various violations.

    Bradley A. Smith

    Defendant disclosed Bradley Smith to opine on whether the Stormy Daniels (“Daniels”) payoff violated campaign finance law. Prosecution insisted that his proposed testimony be treated as expert testimony and not lay testimony. The Court agreed considering Smith did not possess personal knowledge regarding the underlying facts of the instant matter.

    Defendant sought to elicit from Smith, among other things, that at the time Cohen paid Daniels, there had never been a case in which anyone had been convicted of a federal campaign finance law violation for the making of “hush money payments;” the facts surrounding the trial of former U.S. Senator and presidential candidate, John Edwards, his subsequent acquittal, and that the case was heavily criticized.

    The Court permitted Smith to testify generally as to the following: general background as to what the Federal Campaign Commission (“FEC”) is, background as to who makes up the FEC, what the FEC’s function is, what laws, if any, the FEC is responsible for enforcing, and general definitions and terms that relate directly to this case, such as for example “campaign contribution” but barred him from opining on the interpretation and application of federal campaign finance laws and whether the alleged conduct in this case did or did not constitute a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”).

    Held

    On March 18, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to exclude the testimony of Bradley Smith.

    Two months later, a Manhattan jury found Donald Trump guilty of all 34 charges of falsifying business records, making Trump the first former president in American history to be convicted of a felony.

    The 34 charges against the former president are Class E felonies, the lowest level in New York law. Trump, however, has said he will appeal.

    Key Takeaway:

    Federal investigators went after Cohen instead of Trump. The Manhattan DA took years to finally present the case to a grand jury. Now it could end up being the only one of the four criminal cases against Trump to go to trial before the November election but the guilty verdict, while a major political moment, does not prevent Trump from continuing his presidential campaign nor from serving should he win the White House.

    The Court permitted Smith to provide background on what the Federal Campaign Commission (“FEC”) is but barred him from offering opinion testimony on the interpretation and application of federal campaign finance laws.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: People of the State of New York V. Donald J. Trump
    Indictment No: 71543/2023
    Court: Supreme Court of the State of New York
    Order Date: May 30, 2024