USA v. Martinez

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALFREDO YANEZ MARTINEZ,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE
DNA EXPERTS
Case 2:24-cr-00183-TS
District Judge Ted Stewart
This matter is before the Court on the Parties’ respective Motions in Limine seeking
exclusion of the opposing party’s DNA expert witness. Defendant first filed his Motion in
Limine to Exclude Government’s Expert and Associated Evidence under Rule 16(a)(1)(G),
seeking exclusion of the government’s DNA expert, Megan Duge.1 The government
subsequently filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Notice of Intent to Rely on Expert Testimony of
Megan Duge, indicating it no longer intended to present expert testimony relating to DNA
evidence as part of its case-in-chief.2 Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendant’s Motion in
Limine as moot.
The government then filed a Motion a Limine to Exclude Defendant’s Expert Witness
Relating to DNA.3 The government argues that the testimony of Defendant’s DNA expert, Dr.
Norah Rudin, should be excluded as irrelevant because her testimony was proposed to rebut the
testimony of the government’s DNA expert, who the government no longer intends to call. The
1 Docket No. 84.
2 Docket No. 91.
3 Docket No. 93.
Case 2:24-cr-00183-TS Document 112 Filed 11/17/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 3

2
government further argues that the testimony should be excluded because Defendant’s notice of
Dr. Rudin’s testimony does not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
16(b)(1)(C). Specifically, it argues that Defendant’s disclosure fails to include either a “complete
statement of all the opinions that the defendant will elicit from the witness in the defendant’s
case-in-chief” or the “bases and reasons for them” as required by Rule 16(b)(1)(C)(iii); or a
signature of the proposed expert indicating approval of the disclosure as required by Rule
16(b)(1)(C)(v).
Defendant has not filed a response to the government’s Motion and the time for doing so
has since passed.4 Defendant’s Notice of Intent to Use Expert Testimony states that Dr. Rudin
“is anticipated to provide testimony related to her review of the DNA analysis the government’s
expert witness performed in this case and the methodologies involved.”5 The purpose of Dr.
Rudin’s testimony therefore appears to be limited to rebutting the government’s DNA expert,
which the government no longer intends to call. Defendant has not asserted any other purpose for
Dr. Rudin’s testimony or otherwise explained how her testimony remains relevant. Moreover,
Defendant’s disclosure is deficient under Rule 16. Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendant’s
Motion in Limine to exclude Dr. Rudin’s testimony.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Government’s Expert (Docket
No. 84) is DENIED as moot. It is further
ORDERED that the government’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendant’s Expert
(Docket No. 93) is GRANTED.
4 DUCrimR 12-1(b) (“A response memorandum must be filed within 14 days after
service of the motion.”).
5 Docket No. 81, at 1.
Case 2:24-cr-00183-TS Document 112 Filed 11/17/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 3

3
DATED this 17th day of November, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
Ted Stewart
United States District Judge
Case 2:24-cr-00183-TS Document 112 Filed 11/17/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 3