Expert Testimony on the Functions of a County Attorney Admitted
Posted on November 7, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Defendant Howard Keith Hall is the former County Attorney of Pike County, Kentucky. Hall is a current Pike County Circuit Court Judge. The United States charged Hall with two counts of mail fraud and one count of theft of government funds. The charges stem from an alleged scheme in which Hall hired Attorney A1 as an Assistant County Attorney and paid this attorney approximately $440,587 in state salary and benefits despite the attorney performing little to no work for the Pike County Attorney’s Office (“PCAO”).
While Attorney A served as an Assistant County Attorney, Hall participated in the private practice of law at Attorney A’s law firm and received various payments described as “Distributions” totaling $505,900. The United States alleged that Hall committed mail fraud by signing and mailing false payroll certifications indicating that Attorney A fulfilled his duties as a part time assistant county attorney despite doing no work.
The United States filed this motion to exclude in response to Hall’s disclosure noticing Harold Mac Johns, the former County Attorney of Todd County. Hall’s disclosure anticipated that Johns will testify and offer opinions on several topics, including the various responsibilities of a county attorney’s office; the full-time and part-time system used in Kentucky for county attorney offices; the statutory duties of an assistant county attorney; the ability of county attorneys and assistant county attorneys to participate in the private practice of law; the private relationship between Hall and Attorney A; the particular allegations of the Indictment; and other topics or issues that may arise from the government’s case-in-chief.
United States filed a Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Harold Mac Johns.
Law and Legal Expert Witness
Harold Mac Johns served as the Todd County Attorney for 28 years from January 1990 until September 2018. He served on the Prosecutors Advisory Council for seven years from 1997 until 2004.
Discussion by the Court
The United States raised four arguments in support of its motion to exclude the testimony of Johns. First, the government charged that the Court should exclude Johns’ testimony as untimely. Second, that the Court should exclude Johns’ testimony for making inadequate disclosures. Third, that Johns’ testimony does not meet any provision of Rule 702. Fourth, that Johns’ testimony invaded the province of the Court and jury. Indirectly, the government also argued that Johns did not meet the definition of a lay opinion witness under Fed. R. Evid. 701.
The United States argued that the Court should exclude the noticed expert testimony because it is (1) untimely and because (2) the notice failed to state what Johns’ opinion will be on several of the subjects.
Late Notice
Hall’s initial appearance and arraignment took place on May 16, 2025, before Magistrate Judge Matthew A. Stinnett. Per the Court’s order, Hall should have provided the government with notice of expert testimony on or before May 26, 2025. This Court continued Hall’s trial to November 10, 2025, after holding a telephonic scheduling question with counsel for Hall and the United States. Hall produced the disclosure noticing Johns on October 14, 2025, roughly one month before the start of the jury trial on November 07, 2025.
Basically, Hall submitted this disclosure several weeks before the start of trial, giving the United States ample notice of an anticipated witness. Hall did not submit this witness in an effort to throw sand into the gears of the judicial process, but to provide context and testimony about the inner workings of a county attorney’s office, an issue that cuts to the heart of the case. The Court does not find that Hall acted in bad faith, and the reasons for the delay appear to be related to the case’s complexity and the accompanying number of motions filings, hearings, and orders. Nor is the Court convinced that the late notice of this witness prejudices the government.
The government has had time to raise its motion to exclude with this Court. None of Johns’ proposed testimony raises novel issues or arguments that the government is unfamiliar with as it pertains to Hall’s defense. This is particularly true where any prejudice to the government can be cured with a less severe course of action.
Inadequate Disclosures
The Court turned next to the government’s second procedural argument: that Johns’ testimony should be excluded for inadequate disclosures.
Hall’s disclosure included Johns’ qualifications as the Todd County Attorney, a member of the Prosecutors Advisory Council, and as a private practitioner. The disclosure listed several topics, but the government argued that “the disclosure failed to address what Johns’ opinion would be on several of the subjects noticed.” Several of the topics did not include an opinion statement. Thus, the Court faces a situation where Hall has included opinion statements as to some topics but has not provided opinion statements for others.
The Court is not convinced that the deficiencies require the exclusion of Johns’ entire testimony. The government has not claimed in its motion that the lack of detail affects their ability to counter the evidence. Excluding the witness is not the only remedy available to the Court since the government is not burdened by an “undue surprise” that prevents their “adequate opportunity to prepare” to prepare for trial.
The Court may appropriately set boundaries on Johns’ admissible testimony and issue other orders that are “just under the circumstances.”
Rule 702
Hall submitted that Johns can provide testimony about how an elected county attorney runs their office and the functions of the county attorneys in general.
The government argued that “the number of years someone has served as a county attorney does not translate to facts or data that this Court can evaluate for reliability under Rule 702 or Daubert.”
However, the Court was convinced that Johns’ 28 years as a county prosecutor and seven years as part of the Prosecutors Advisory Council support the reliability determination that he is qualified to opine on the ways in which a Kentucky county attorney runs their office.
Moreover, Johns’ testimony would assist the jury in understanding the inner workings of a county attorney’s office, the procedures by which county attorneys hire staff, and the ways in which the individual attorney’s offices work with the Prosecutors Advisory Council and other offices within the Commonwealth’s state government.
Legal Conclusions
Johns can testify as to the statutory duties of an assistant county attorney but under no circumstances could Johns offer an opinion as to whether Hall’s actions were legal or sanctioned under the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Johns similarly cannot testify as to whether there are or are not legal requirements for assistant county attorneys to work a minimum number of hours. He cannot testify to Hall’s willfulness to commit any act or that Hall did or did not have the requisite intent to defraud.
Plainly, the Court held that much of Johns’ proposed testimony violated the prohibition against a witness testifying about legal requirements or interpretations of statute. By way of example, Johns can testify to the day-to-day operations of a county attorney’s office. Johns can testify that it is common to hire assistant county attorneys and describe how that process works. But Johns cannot testify that Hall’s acts were legal or sanctioned by Johns’ own interpretation of Kentucky’s statutes. This is not an exhaustive analysis of what Johns may or may not say on the witness stand. But this much is clear — any testimony suggesting that Hall’s actions were legal or appropriate under the laws of the Commonwealth or that the interpretation of the statutes requires a certain outcome is inadmissible.
The bulk of Johns’ testimony as to the functions of a county attorney’s office will fall under Rule 702 because Johns never served in the Pike County Attorney’s office. Moreover, it is not clear from the record before the Court that Johns was ever personally involved in any of the facts at issue in this case.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part the United States’ motion to exclude the testimony of Harold Mac Johns.
Key Takeaway:
Johns’ extensive experience as a county prosecutor and his personal knowledge as to the responsibilities, duties, and discretion of a county attorney meet both the reliability and relevance elements required by Rule 702.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | USA V. Hall |
| Docket Number: | 3:25cr5 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Kentucky Eastern |
| Order Date: | November 06, 2025 |
