Second Circuit Appeals Court Upholds Conviction of Uzair Paracha, Expert Testimony Given in Case
By Evan Kohlmann
Last week, in an unpublished summary order, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 2005 conviction of Uzair Paracha in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) on charges of providing material support to Al-Qaida. Paracha's defense attorneys had sought on appeal to challenge the admission of expert testimony during the trial from myself addressing various relevant aspects of the organization and structure of Al-Qaida. Summary of decision as follows:
United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit
UNITED STATES v. Uzair PARACHA,
No. 06-3599-cr.
June 19, 2008.
(Cite as: 2008 WL 2477392 (C.A.2 (N.Y.)))
[4] Admission of Expert Testimony
"*3 Paracha asserts that the district court erred by admitting Evan Kohlmann's expert testimony on the organization and structure of al Qaeda. The record evinces, however, that Paracha waived his challenge to the relevance and utility of such testimony during a pre-trial conference. Even if not waived, and even with respect to Paracha's preserved challenge to the reliability of Kohlmann's methodology, in light of our deferential standard of review, see United States v. Wexler, 522 F.3d 194, 204 (2d Cir.2008) (noting that we review a district court's evidentiary rulings for manifest error), and the considerable leeway the Supreme Court has afforded district courts in deciding whether to admit expert testimony, see Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999), the court was well within its discretion in ruling that Kohlmann's methodology was sufficiently reliable and his testimony relevant to the jury's understanding of al Qaeda so as to be admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).See United States v. Paracha, No. 03-cr-1197, 2006 WL 12768, at *20-22 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2006). Indeed, the court limited the government's use of the expert testimony, demonstrating that it carefully considered Kohlmann's reliability and expertise, as well as the proper scope of his testimony. Id. at 22-24."
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://counterterrorismblog.org/mt/pings.cgi/5304