DOJ-OGR-00006792.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452 Filed 11/12/21 Page 84 of 84 enforcement officers identified by the defense as experts and will not elicit expert testimony from them. Those witnesses are being called as fact witnesses to describe, for instance, the execution of a search and evidence seized during that search.”4 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Government respectfully requests that the Court deny the defendant’s motions in limine. Dated: October 25, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York By: /s/ Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys partner in the narcotics distribution conspiracy. Garcia, 413 F.3d at 216. That is distinguishable from cases where, as expected here, witnesses testify based on their personal involvement in certain investigative steps. 4 It bears noting that the defense’s motion is expressly concerned about testimony from case agents (Def. Mot. 10 at 5 n.2), and testimony about “the case, its origins, and the investigation” (id. at 3), which it considers to be improper expert testimony. The Government has moved to preclude the defense from offering such evidence, including by calling the case agents identified in its Touhy notice. (See Gov’t Motions in Limine Section III). Accordingly, if the defense plans to call case agents for such testimony—which the Court should preclude—the defense must provide expert notice of such testimony. 83 DOJ-OGR- 00006792