Expert Witness Blog
In the recent case of USA v. Suzanne Ellen Kaye, No. 23-11423 (11th Cir. 2024), the admissibility and role of an Internet Expert Witness became a central issue in evaluating alleged criminal threats made via social media platforms. This case provides a clear illustration of the courts’ approach to expert testimony related to internet communications and the application of Daubert standards in federal criminal proceedings.
Background and Facts
Suzanne Ellen Kaye was charged with two counts of transmitting threats in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), based on videos she posted to Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. The prosecution alleged that Kaye’s statements in these videos constituted “true threats” not protected by the First Amendment. The case focused on whether the content and context of Kaye’s online communications met the legal threshold for criminal threats.
Parties and Proceedings
The United States prosecuted Kaye, who defended herself by arguing that her statements were not “true threats” but rather protected speech. Prior to trial, Kaye sought to introduce testimony from Dr. Brooks Fuller, a media law and policy expert, to provide context regarding social media communications and the interpretation of online speech.
Role and Methods of the Internet Expert Witness
Dr. Fuller’s proposed testimony aimed to educate the jury on the nuances of internet communication, including the conventions of social media, audience expectations, and the broader context in which online statements are made. His expert report addressed how statements on platforms like Instagram and TikTok might be perceived differently than in traditional media, and how internet culture could affect the interpretation of alleged threats.
Court’s Reliability and Daubert Analysis
The district court conducted a thorough Daubert analysis under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court first considered whether Dr. Fuller’s expertise was relevant and whether his testimony would assist the trier of fact. The court determined that the jury was capable of evaluating the reasonableness of Kaye’s statements and their context without the aid of an expert. Specifically, the court found that:
– The question of whether a statement constitutes a “true threat” is a factual determination for the jury, not a technical matter requiring expert elucidation.
– Dr. Fuller’s testimony was not “helpful” under Rule 702(a) because lay jurors could assess the meaning and impact of the videos based on their own experiences with social media.
– There was a substantial risk under Rule 403 that the expert’s testimony would confuse the issues, potentially conflating Dr. Fuller’s legal interpretations with the jury’s role and the court’s instructions.
The court excluded Dr. Fuller’s testimony, emphasizing that expert analysis is not necessary when the subject matter falls within the common knowledge of jurors, even if it involves internet platforms.
Impact of Expert Testimony on the Outcome
The exclusion of the Internet Expert Witness was pivotal. Without Dr. Fuller’s contextual analysis, the jury relied solely on its own understanding of social media and the evidence presented. After a three-day trial, the jury acquitted Kaye on one count (related to a shorter video) but convicted her on the second count (related to a longer video). The district court sentenced Kaye to 18 months in prison, below the guideline range.
On appeal, Kaye challenged the exclusion of her expert, arguing that the district court abused its discretion. The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision and affirmed the exclusion, reiterating that expert testimony must be both relevant and necessary to assist the jury. The appellate court agreed that the jury was competent to interpret the social media evidence without expert assistance.
Conclusion
This case underscores the judiciary’s careful gatekeeping role under Daubert when evaluating Internet Expert Witness testimony. Courts will exclude expert analysis if the subject matter is within the ordinary experience of jurors, even in cases involving complex internet communications. The outcome in United States v. Kaye demonstrates the decisive impact of expert witness admissibility on the trial process and ultimate verdict.