Anthropology Expert Witness’ Testimony on Gift-Giving Customs Excluded
Posted on February 20, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
It all started when a grand jury indicted Senator Robert Menendez (“Menendez”), Nadine Menendez, Wael Hana, Fred Daibes, and Jose Uribe for their roles in a complex scheme to bribe Menendez to take official acts to benefit them and foreign governments in September 2023. After a nine-week trial, a jury found Defendants Menendez, Hana, and Daibes guilty on all counts with which they had been charged.
Defendant sought to introduce testimony pursuant to Rule 702 from Christa Salamandra, a professor of anthropology at Lehman College of the City University of New York. Her opinion is on “how Middle Eastern cultures—in particular, the Lebanese and Armenian cultures where Ms. Nadine Menendez’s family has its roots—treat and regard gifts of things of value between friends and business associates.”
The question before the Court is whether Salamandra is qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.”
Anthropology Expert Witness
Christa Salamandra is a Professor of Anthropology at Lehman College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York, who specializes in Arabic language fictional media. She received a Ph.D. from the Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology, University of Oxford, where she also served as Postdoctoral Research Associate.
Salamandra served as a Visiting Lecturer in the Department of Anthropology, The School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London; a Fulbright Scholar and Visiting Professor at Lebanese American University in Beirut; a Visiting Fellow at the New Islamic Public Sphere Programme, University of Copenhagen, a visiting Scholar at The Center for Middle East Studies, Lund University; and a Fulbright Scholar and Visiting Scholar at the Department of Mass Communication, American University of Sharjah.
Discussion by the Court
Salamandra Is Not Qualified to Give the Proffered Expert Testimony
Defendant’s expert notice states that Salamandra is “an expert in Middle Eastern cultures and has lived, worked, and conducted ethnographic research in Beirut.” Salamandra has co-edited two books, written numerous articles, and given many conference presentations. While the Court is impressed with Salamandra’s credentials, a review of Salamandra’s CV, however, reveals that her scholarship overwhelmingly focuses on popular culture in Syria and specifically, Syrian television.
Indeed, 10 of her 12 peer-reviewed articles concern either Syria, television, or both. Not a single article, presentation, book, or chapter states that it analyzes or even discusses gift-giving practices and there is no indication that Salamandra has conducted any research of any kind concerning gift-giving in Middle Eastern cultures.
Since there is no mention of Armenia in Salamandra’s CV and living in Beirut for two years and conducting ethnographic research while there—on an undisclosed topic—is not enough to render her an expert on how Middle Eastern cultures “treat and regard gifts of things of value between friends and business associates,” the Court held that she is not qualified as an expert capable of opining on gift-giving among Lebanese and Armenian cultures—much less on the culture of individuals with Middle Eastern roots who have lived in the United States for decades.
Salamandra’s Testimony Would Not Help the Jury
It should be noted that while Nadine Menendez’s grandparents are apparently Armenian and she was born in Lebanon, Menendez left the Middle East when she was approximately 11 or 12 years old. Since the beginning of high school, Menendez has resided in the United States. Thus, at 57 years of age, she has not lived in the Middle East for more than 40 years.
As for Menendez’s early childhood in Lebanon, the Court held that there is no evidence that Salamandra’s testimony would account for the fact that Defendant has not lived in the region for most of her life (were these even to be topics within her expertise).
In other words, no sufficient link has been established between Menendez’s early childhood in Lebanon and her state of mind when she received gold bars and other high-value items some 40 years later.
The defense proffered that Salamandra will testify that “a gift is an expression of affection, affinity, and respect,” that “part of what makes a gift a gift is that, while some form of reciprocity is expected, it cannot be immediate or in kind,” and that “a gift often is intended to foster trust and good will.” However, these concepts regarding gifts and gift-giving are well within the ken of the average juror.
The Court held that even if her testimony were otherwise admissible, Salamandra may not define or opine on legal terms for the jury. Specifically, Salamandra would not be permitted to testify that “a gift . . . does not necessarily connote a ‘quid pro quo,'” as her counsel proposes. That is a legal term and far beyond the bounds of proper expert testimony.
Defendant’s Expert Notice Pursuant To Federal Rule Of Criminal Procedure 16 Is Deficient
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 requires a Defendant to disclose, inter alia, “the bases and reasons” for “all opinions that the Defendant will elicit from the [expert] witness.”
Here, Defendant’s expert notice under Rule 16 stated simply that Salamandra “is an expert in Middle Eastern cultures and has lived, worked, and conducted ethnographic research in Beirut” and then proceeded to list the conclusions Salamandra drew from that experience.
This notice failed to explain “how Salamandra came to these conclusions.” In response to the government’s motion, Defendant contended that “cultural opinions,” unlike scientific expert testimony, are purely “observational.”
Even assuming that to be true, the notice did not identify what observations Salamandra has made that inform or otherwise support her proffered testimony and what those observations are based on. The Court held that Salamandra’s CV did not explain how her research and professional experience led her to her proffered opinions concerning gift-giving.
Salamandra’s Testimony is Precluded Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403
There is essentially no probative value to Salamandra’s testimony concerning gift-giving in Middle Eastern cultures. Menendez and her family settled in the United States more than 40 years ago; her proposed expert has demonstrated no expertise in Lebanese or Armenian culture in the diaspora; and the defense has offered no evidence that defendant herself actually subscribes to the gift-giving customs about which Salamandra has proposed to testify.
Under Rule 403, the Court also weighs the risk that this evidence would confuse or mislead the jury, waste time and lengthen the trial, and be cumulative of any lay witness testimony on this issue. Accordingly, the Court precludes Salamandra’s testimony under Rule 403 because the low probative value of her testimony would be substantially outweighed by a danger of confusing or misleading the jury, wasting time and lengthening the trial, and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
Held
The Court granted the government’s motion in limine and precluded the testimony of Christa Salamandra pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16.
Key Takeaway:
Christa Salamandra has demonstrated no expertise in Lebanese or Armenian culture in the diaspora. Despite her early childhood in Lebanon, Menendez and her family settled in the United States more than 40 years ago. Salamandra’s CV did not explain how her research and professional experience led her to her proffered opinions concerning gift-giving. Moreover, the defense has offered no evidence that Menendez herself actually subscribes to the gift-giving customs about which Salamandra has proposed to testify.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | United States V. Menendez |
| Docket Number: | 1:23cr490 |
| Court: | United States District Court, New York Southern |
| Order Date: | February 19, 2025 |
