Schuler told the U.S. District Court for the NMI he will present Dr. Tabitha Viner, supervisory veterinary pathologist at the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Lab, Bonnie Yates and Barry Baker, as witnesses when the trial begins next month.
The defendants — retired police officer Adrian Mendiola, Rota Customs Officer Albert Taitano and Division of Fish and Wildlife employee David Santos — were charged last year with violating the U.S. Endangered Species Act over a poaching incident that happened in 2008.
Mendiola was also charged with unlawful possession of an endangered species while Santos and Taitano were charged with unlawful taking of an endangered species.
The three have court-appointed attorneys and are scheduled to appear in court next month in a simultaneous jury and bench trial owing to their different roles in killing at least eight fruit bats.
Viner will act as the “cause of death” expert, replacing Dr. Rhoda Ralston who examined the eight fruit bats that were submitted to the National Forensics Laboratory in this case, said Schuler.
The pathologist and the two other government expert witnesses will use the Medford District Court facilities to appear in the video teleconference or VTC.
The fate of the three defendants lies on the tool mark evidence from some of the shotgun shells found at the Sumac poaching site that were discharged from a Mossberg .410 shotgun found at Santos’ residence and a Remington .410 shotgun found at Taitano’s house.
The defendants have also advised the court they are bringing experts/consultants Adina Schwartz and Liam Hendrikse of Canada to testify through VTC if the need arises.
The prosecution is not objecting to this idea.
However, Schuler said Schwartz’ testimony on trial should not be admitted as her knowledge and background are not those of a firearms expert.
“Further, the court finds that Dr. Schwartz’s proposed expert testimony as to her opinion that the field of firearms and toolmarks identification is inherently unreliable is not admissible because: 1) it will not assist the jury since most of the points defendants seek to illustrate through Dr. Schwartz can more appropriately be made through rigorous cross examination of the government’s expert; 2) conducting this kind of ‘second Daubert hearing’ during trial will very likely lead to juror confusion,” Schuler said.
“The court does n ot find Dr. Schwartz’s testimony to be sufficiently reliable to be admissible under Rule 702 and Daubert/Kumho. Accordingly, the court in the exercise of its gatekeeping function, shall close the gate on Dr. Schwartz’s proposed expert testimony in this case,” he added.
As for Hendrikse, Schuler said they have very little information about him and noted that the U.S. government reserves the right to object to any testimony from him.
