Intelligence Research Expert’s Belated Report Admitted

A grand jury charged Defendants Chariece Chew and Kathryn Coe with engaging in the straw purchase of firearms and making false statements in the acquisition of firearms. Also, the grand jury charged Chew with two counts of being a felon in possession of firearms.

The Final Pretrial and Trial Order set June 13, 2025 as the deadline for expert disclosures. Nearly a month after that deadline, the United States filed its notice of intent to introduce the expert testimony of Robert Little on July 7, 2025.

Defendant Chariece Chew filed a motion to exclude Little’s testimony as untimely. 

Intelligence Research Expert Witness

‘Robert Little is an Intelligence Research Specialist at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive. He has extensive knowledge of the laws and regulations administered by the Bureau, as well as other law enforcement policies, programs, organizational structures, and related matters.

Want to know more about the challenges Robert Little has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

Discussion by the Court

Here, the United States made a late disclosure of the expert testimony of Robert Little. Although the expert’s report remained unsigned, there was no reason to believe that the witness would not stand behind the report or that its conclusions and opinions were not his. Therefore, on this record, the Court could not say that this deficiency warranted one of the remedies provided under Rule 16.

With respect to the timeliness of the disclosure, the record in this case did not present a risk of unfair surprise, and the belated expert report did not introduce new facts or evidence previously unknown to Defendant. In discovery, the United States had provided the underlying information and data supporting the report in September 2024. Therefore, Defendant had known since then to identify his own expert, whether to consult in understanding the information and data produced or to testify at trial. Further, based on discussion with counsel at the final pretrial conference, Chew did not express a desire to continue the trial date, which was scheduled to begin on August 11, 2025. At bottom, Little’s disclosure came a month before trial, and the conclusions and opinions it expressed had long been an important part of this case. Further, disclosure of his prior testimony came sufficiently in advance of trial to allow defense counsel effectively to meet that testimony. Therefore, the Court found that the record did not support a more serious remedy under Rule 16, such as exclusion of the evidence.

Held

The Court denied the Defendant’s motion to exclude the late expert report of Robert Little. 

Key Takeaway:

Effective December 1, 2022, an amendment to Rule 16 took effect, bringing the expert disclosure obligations for criminal cases more closely in line with the current practice in civil cases under Rule 26(a)(2). This amendment largely, but not entirely, imports the best practices from civil practice for expert disclosures to criminal cases. One important aspect of expert practice in civil cases not included in the amendment to Rule 16 is the self-executing sanction of exclusion for failure to make a required disclosure. 

Instead, Rule 16(d)(2) gives the Court discretion to fashion an appropriate remedy under the circumstances. Indeed, unlike civil practice under Rule 26(a)(2) and Rule 37(c), Rule 16 lists the consequences for a failure to make an expert disclosure in the order of priority in which they should be used to facilitate a trial and resolution of a case on its merits. In other words, Rule 16(d)(2) identifies a list of available remedies beginning with making the disclosure at issue through exclusion to more serious sanctions.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	United States of America V. Chew
Docket Number:	1:24cr231
Court Name:	United States District Court, Ohio Northern
Order Date:	July 28, 2025