Opinion
No. 4:08CR00314-002 SWW.
March 24, 2010
ORDER
Before the Court is the government's motion to exclude defendant's eyewitness identification expert testimony to which defendant responded.
"Expert testimony is admissible only if the expert `is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue.'" United States v. Martin, 391 F.3d 949, 954 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592 (1993). In Martin, the district court excluded eyewitness expert testimony, noting that the eyewitness identifications at issue were corroborated by other evidence. Because the Court does not know what the government's other evidence against the defendant will be, the motion [docket entry 111] to exclude is denied at this time. See United States v. Davis, 260 F.3d 965, 970 (8th Cir. 2001) (court reluctant to find abuse of discretion "unless the government's case against the defendant rested exclusively on uncorroborated eyewitness testimony"). Upon motion, the Court will schedule a hearing to re-consider the motion.