Law Enforcement Expert’s Testimony on Conspiracy Membership Excluded
Posted on July 21, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
The Government charged Xiong Lin with conspiracy to distribute, and to possess with intent to distribute, controlled substances. From approximately May through at least September 2022, Lin allegedly conspired with others—known and unknown—in the District of Massachusetts and elsewhere to distribute cocaine and MDMA.
Government filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Defendant Xiong Lin’s proposed expert witness, Mr. Craig J. Nicewicz.
Lin designated Nicewicz to rebut the Government’s anticipated assertion that anyone performing occasional tasks for drug traffickers necessarily knows the scope of the conspiracy. Nicewicz indicated that he has “conducted comprehensive investigations into law enforcement practices, including surveillance tactics, confidential informant reliability, and search and seizure procedures, with a focus on ensuring that Defendants’ constitutional rights are protected.”
The Government moved to exclude Nicewicz’s testimony on three grounds: (1) Lin’s expert disclosure was untimely and failed to satisfy Rule 16(b)(1)(C); (2) Nicewicz lacked specialized knowledge of drug-trafficking organizations; and (3) his opinions are unreliable and have the potential to confuse the jury.
Law Enforcement Expert Witness
Craig J. Nicewicz worked in an administrative or managerial capacity within the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts for over twenty years.
When he finally left the Court in 2017, he went on to work as a management analyst for the United States Administrative Office in Washington D.C., where he worked on rewriting nationwide manuals and polices for the U.S. Courts related to staff training and operations within budget constraints. He is currently employed as a private investigator with American Legal Investigative Service.
Discussion by the Court
Lin contended that Nicewicz’s testimony is necessary to ensure a balanced presentation and prevent the jury from being misled about conspiracy membership.
The Government first argued that Lin failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 because his untimely expert disclosure consisted only of a single-page summary and a curriculum vitae omitting any detailed statement of Nicewicz’s opinions, the data he reviewed, or the analytical steps he employed. It next contended that, even if the disclosure were timely, Nicewicz is unqualified to opine on drug-trafficking organizations. Finally, prosecutors warned that admitting Nicewicz’s testimony—lacking methodological rigor—risks confusing the jury.
Lin conceded that Nicewicz has no specialized training, publications, or peer-reviewed work in the field of narcotics conspiracies and that he only previously testified in a Massachusetts state case as a factual rebuttal witness regarding interviews he conducted. Lin also conceded that Nicewicz has no formal law enforcement training or academic credentials in criminal justice but emphasized his two decades in court administration in the District of Massachusetts and his current work as a private investigator. Nicewicz would not testify about Lin’s specific intent or knowledge, but rather would offer general observations about courier roles in drug cases. Lin maintained that these experiences qualify Nicewicz to challenge the assumption that all couriers knowingly participate in drug conspiracies and that excluding his testimony would permit misleading expert opinions to go unchallenged, risking unfair prejudice.
Analysis
The Court held that Nicewicz’s opinions rest on passive observations rather than on the application of reliable principles to case-specific facts. His curriculum vitae reflects career experience in Court administration, not scientific or technical analysis of criminal networks. Lin has provided no information about the particular facts or data Nicewicz reviewed, nor any detailed outline of analytical steps. His private-investigation work offers no recognized methodology for determining when a courier knows the contents of a delivery. Even if he “observed firsthand countless criminal cases,” that passive experience places him at no greater advantage than the factfinder. Nicewicz’s sole state-court testimony merely rebutted witness statements about interviews he conducted, not membership in a drug conspiracy.
Held
The Court granted the Government’s motion to exclude the testimony of defense expert Craig J. Nicewicz.
Key Takeaway:
Defense expert Nicewicz was retained to challenge the assumption that all couriers knowingly participate in drug conspiracies. Nicewicz’s opinions were based on his extensive experience in the federal court system, particularly in criminal trials conducted in the U.S. District of Massachusetts, and his experience as a private investigator.
However, his private-investigation work offered no recognized methodology for determining when a courier knows the contents of a delivery. Even if he “observed firsthand countless criminal cases,” that passive experience places him at no greater advantage than the factfinder.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | United States V. Feng Chen and Xiong Lin |
| Docket Number: | 1:22cr10279 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Massachusetts |
| Order Date: | July 18, 2025 |
