USA v. Jones et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
NEWTON JONES (01),
WILLIAM CREEDEN (02),
KATERYNA JONES (03),
LAWRENCE MCMANAMON (05),
Defendants.
Case No. 24-20070-DDC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The defense has proffered Jeffrey Gaia as an expert. Gaia, a banking executive, opines
about the roles of defendants Newton Jones and William Creeden at the Bank of Labor. He
provides these opinions because the government accuses defendants of impropriety in their BOL
positions—excessive compensation, lack of engagement, undue influence, shady transactions,
and excessive travel. The government has asked the court to exclude Gaia’s testimony under
Fed. R. Evid. 702 as irrelevant and unreliable.1 Doc. 212. As explained below, the court agrees
with the government, but only in part. The court thus grants the government’s motion in part and
denies it in part.
1 	The government has asked the court to conduct a hearing on its motion. The court recognizes
that, in some cases, a hearing is preferable. Our Circuit doesn’t require a hearing, however. United States
v. Nacchio, 555 F.3d 1234, 1251 (10th Cir. 2009) (en banc). The court concludes that this expert in this
case doesn’t require a hearing. The court conducted a hearing for two other defense experts, Doc. 291,
and that experience taught the court that another hearing wouldn’t assist its work. If the government had
more to say about Gaia, then it should have filed a brief that did more than simply recite generalized legal
principles.
Case 2:24-cr-20070-DDC Document 363 Filed 05/01/26 Page 1 of 19

2
I. 	Background
Jones2 served as international president of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers
Union—IBB for short. Creeden served as IBB’s secretary-treasurer. IBB owns stock in the
Bank of Labor’s holding company. Doc. 1 at 6. IBB also holds several accounts at the BOL. Id.
In addition to his IBB position, from 2009 to 2023, Jones also served as the BOL’s Chairman of
the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer. Id. And, during the same timeframe,
Creeden served as a member of BOL’s Board of Directors and held the title of Senior Executive
Vice-President. Id.
In a nutshell, the Indictment charges defendants Jones and Creeden with a racketeering
conspiracy based, in part, on misuse of their positions at the BOL. The Indictment alleges that
Jones and Creeden leveraged IBB’s partial ownership of the BOL to secure executive positions
for themselves at the BOL. Id. at 25. Jones and Creeden allegedly enriched themselves within
these positions—i.e., annual salaries over $400,000, bonuses, 401(k) contributions, life-insurance
coverage, cash for unused personal time, and a “golden parachute” retirement. Id. In total, over
their 13 years of employment by the BOL, Creeden and Jones collected more than $3,400,000.
Id. And yet, according to the government, Jones and Creeden “performed little or no services as
employees for the Bank of Labor.” Id.
The Indictment also alleges that Jones and Creeden loaned $7 million of IBB funds to the
BOL without consulting IBB’s Board of Trustees and Executive Council. Id. at 24. Federal law
and IBB’s own internal rules required Jones and Creeden to consult with the relevant bodies. Id.
According to the government, the loans were “not necessary to achieve the union’s interests or
for its benefit.” Id. at 24–25.
2 	The court recognizes that multiple defendants in this case have the last name of Jones. For
purposes of this Order, Jones means defendant Newton Jones.
Case 2:24-cr-20070-DDC Document 363 Filed 05/01/26 Page 2 of 19

3
To counter these allegations, defendants have retained Jeffrey Gaia. Gaia has 29 years of
experience in the banking industry. Doc. 221-1 at 4. He worked at several banks and, in 2003,
he co-founded a start-up community bank. Id. He served at his start-up bank as chairman and
president. Id. He asserts that his responsibilities at his bank “were similar to those of Newton
Jones and William Creeden at Bank of Labor.” Id. The court provides an overview of Gaia’s
opinions, below.
A. 	The Roles of Jones and Creeden
According to Gaia, because IBB is a majority owner of the BOL, “the role of Chairman
had historically been filled by” IBB’s president. Id. at 7. Indeed, Jones’s father previously
served as president of IBB and chairman of the BOL. Id. And nothing suggests that the BOL’s
chairman “was ever involved operationally at the bank.” Id. Instead, Gaia asserts that Jones—
based on banking regulators’ statements—developed strategy for the bank. Id. Meanwhile, the
BOL’s President, Robert McCall, handled daily operations. Id.
Gaia credits Jones with introducing a new strategy at the BOL—what Gaia calls the
Labor Strategy. Id. The Labor Strategy “focused on expanding relationships with local and
national labor movement organizations and their members.” Id. According to Gaia, Jones
“leverage[d] his knowledge and labor movement relationships as” IBB’s President to help the
BOL’s development efforts. Id. Gaia suggests that this role involved “introduction to labor
leaders, attending union conferences and gatherings, and generally being visible as the ‘face’ of
the bank.” Id. at 7–8. None of these activities required permanent or significant time at the
bank’s headquarters, Gaia claims. Id. at 8.
Case 2:24-cr-20070-DDC Document 363 Filed 05/01/26 Page 3 of 19

4
Gaia also cites the FBI’s interview notes of Robert Worner, a BOL board member for
more than 30 years and a career investment banker. Id. According to Gaia, Robert3 told the FBI
that, in 2010, “Jones introduced a ‘vision’ for BOL designed to accelerate its growth trajectory.”
Id. Robert told the FBI that Jones’s responsibilities focused on business development, “using his
long-standing relationships with other labor leaders to generate new business for BOL.” Id.
For Creeden, Gaia calls his role “compl[e]mentary” to Jones, as “second chair.” Id.
Creeden lived in Kansas City and was more visible in the BOL’s offices. Id. Creeden also had
credit and investment experience. Id. Gaia cites the interview of Richard Worner, in which
Richard told the FBI that Creeden possessed institutional knowledge that Jones lacked and
served as the interface between Jones’s strategy and implementing that strategy. Id.
B. 	Criticisms of Jones
Gaia then pivots to criticizing certain witnesses who criticized Jones to the FBI. Id. at 9.
Gaia reviewed FBI interview forms—called 302s—from interviews with various BOL
employees. These interviews helped form the government’s accusations against Jones. The
court addresses the various criticisms, in turn, below.
1. 	Excessive Executive Compensation
McCall, President of the BOL since 2011, criticized Jones’s compensation. Id. The
Indictment also emphasizes the amount of Jones’s compensation. According to Gaia, Jones’s
annual compensation ranged from $285,000 to $322,000 from 2015 to 2018. Id. at 12. In 2019,
Jones made $358,000. And, after 2019, Jones made “the mid-$400,000 range.” Id. Gaia waves
away criticisms of Jones’s compensation.
3 	The court uses this informal name to avoid confusion, because Gaia’s report refers to Robert
Worner and Richard Worner. Doc. 221-1 at 8. This difference might reflect a typo, because the footnotes
suggest that the FBI interviewed both Robert and Richard Worner on July 30, 2024. Id. The court
assumes that Gaia is referring to two different people.
Case 2:24-cr-20070-DDC Document 363 Filed 05/01/26 Page 4 of 19

5
Gaia first explains that regulators examine executive compensation and would’ve flagged
excessive compensation. Id. at 9. According to Gaia, this concern would’ve come up in a so-
called CAMELS rating, an important rating that serves as “the formal supervisory tool employed
by regulators to assess the overall health of an institution.” Id. BOL received a “2” in the
management category, which indicated that BOL was “fundamentally sound.” Id. at 10 n.15, 16
n.37.
Gaia reviewed four examination reports from April 2015, September 2016, December
2019, and December 2022. Id. at 10. In these reports, Gaia “found only one reference to Board
compensation.” Id. This sole reference comes from the 2016 annual exam, which “suggested
that the Board ‘should continually evaluate the amount of salaries and fees received by the
Directorate, as total Board compensation exceeded $1,200,000 for 2016.’” Id. (quotation
cleaned up). Gaia emphasizes that “this issue was not noted as a formal comment requiring
Board action, nor a violation of law.” Id. And Gaia points out that subsequent examinations
don’t contain any references to compensation that would support McCall’s claim. Id.
To dispel any further concerns about compensation, Gaia cites the 302 of Robert. Id.
Robert, who chaired the Board’s Compensation Committee, was “directly involved in setting
Jones’[s] compensation plan.” Id. Robert claimed “that BOL had hired an independent third
party to determine salary estimates for Jones.” Id. (quotation cleaned up).
Gaia also asserts that Jones’s compensation reflected the results of Jones’s strategy for
BOL. Recall that Gaia has dubbed Jones’s strategy for BOL “the Labor Strategy” and it
involved building relationships with labor organizations. According to Gaia, the Labor Strategy
produced results. When looking at the BOL, Gaia finds a “noticeable increase in new business
generated by the Labor Division[.]” Id. at 11. To tie Jones’s compensation to BOL’s growth,
Case 2:24-cr-20070-DDC Document 363 Filed 05/01/26 Page 5 of 19

6
Gaia asserts that “Jones’[s] compensation was adjusted upward reflective of his contribution.”
Id. Again, Gaia credits Jones and Creeden for this growth.
Gaia points out that McCall—though McCall complained to the FBI about Jones’s
compensation—had told regulators that Jones’s Labor Strategy was important. Id. at 12–13.
Gaia thus opines that it “is contradictory that McCall accused Jones of being uninvolved with
BOL issues while simultaneously admitting the relevance of his role.” Id. at 13.
2. 	Lack of Engagement
Other BOL employees have accused Jones of “no show” employment, accusations to
which Gaia responds. Gaia addresses the criticisms of Bridge Martin and Megan Elder.
Martin, an IBB employee, worked as Jones’s special assistant. Id. According to Gaia,
Martin admitted to the FBI “that she had very limited access to Jones”; “had very little
knowledge of his activities”; and had “virtually no contact with Jones over an extended period of
time.” Id. Gaia thus opines that Martin’s “testimony has little to no value in understanding
Jones’[s] roles at IBB or BOL and is of no relevance to the allegations against Jones.” Id. at 14.
Elder worked as BOL’s head of human resources. Id. Elder told the FBI that Jones
didn’t have daily duties or a clearly defined role at BOL. Id. Elder didn’t know Jones’s role at
BOL and never determined what he did outside of board and committee meetings. Id. Gaia
responds that, as chairman of the board, Jones didn’t have daily duties. Id. Gaia explains that
“Chairm[e]n at other companies typically have no daily operational duties.” Id. And, as head of
human resources, Gaia opines that Elder didn’t have any “need to have meaningful contact with
the Chairman and it is unlikely that she was aware of the duties of the Chairman.” Id. Gaia thus
concludes that Elder’s testimony about Jones’s “no show” job is unreliable. Id.
3. 	Undue Influence
Case 2:24-cr-20070-DDC Document 363 Filed 05/01/26 Page 6 of 19

7
Gaia next addresses McCall’s accusations of undue influence. McCall implied to the FBI
that Jones unilaterally made decisions about board membership and insinuated that the board was
ineffective. Id. at 15. McCall also suggested that regulators were concerned about Jones’s
influence over the board. Id. Gaia responds that regulators flag “any indication of a lack of
independence by Board members[.]” Id. Such a flag would appear “as a criticism in annual
Safety and Soundness exam results.” Id. Gaia then highlights that no evidence suggests that
regulators ever flagged Jones’s control over the board. Id.
To further dispel any undue influence, Gaia cites Worner’s4 302. Worner told the FBI
that McCall would recommend annual salary increases for all employees—Jones and Creeden
included—to the compensation committee, which Worner chaired. Id. Gaia claims this process,
initiated by McCall, demonstrates “the contradictory nature of McCall’s claim of Jones’s
purported control of the board.” Id. And, according to Gaia, Worner would forward the
proposed salary increases to Jones, who would tweak McCall’s recommendations. Id. But Jones
never tweaked McCall’s recommendations for himself or Creeden. Id. Gaia views this absence
of tweaking as “respect for the opinions of senior leaders below him” and “a desire to avoid the
appearance of self-dealing.” Id.
4. 	Transactions from BOL to IBB
Gaia next opines about the transactions from BOL to IBB, which McCall criticized in his
FBI interview. McCall told the FBI that Creeden contacted BOL and requested that the BOL
loan IBB money to fund IBB projects and real-estate purchases. Id. Jones and Creeden
abstained from voting on these loans. Id. According to Gaia, McCall criticized “Jones and
4 	It’s not clear which Worner Gaia is referring to here. See Doc. 221-1 at 15.
Case 2:24-cr-20070-DDC Document 363 Filed 05/01/26 Page 7 of 19

8
Creeden by stating that ‘Jones or Bill used their authority by proxy for the loans to be
approved.’” Id. 	Gaia claims the facts don’t support this conclusion. Id. at 16.
McCall’s 302 mentions loans from the BOL to IBB and “Red W” regulations. Gaia
believes that “Red W” actually refers to Regulation W, a “Federal Reserve rule that governs
transactions between banks and their affiliates.” Id. at 15. According to Gaia, regulators review
related-party loans annually. Id. And, Gaia reports, none of the 2015, 2016, 2019, or 2022
exams he reviewed mentioned any Regulation W violations. Id.
Gaia claims that Creeden asking BOL for an IBB loan “was a normal and customary
event” given Creeden’s status as IBB’s treasurer. Id. at 16. Gaia also emphasizes that Jones and
Creeden abstained from voting on the loans when the loans came to the BOL board. Id. And, in
Gaia’s view, the BOL should’ve handled loans to the IBB “in a manner similar to a Reg O loan”
because of Jones and Creeden’s dual roles at IBB and the BOL. Id. Reg O refers to a Federal
Reserve regulation that governs banks extending credits to executive officers, directors, or
principal shareholders. Id. at 16 n.36. According to Gaia, Reg O loans “require prior Board
approval, with the related Board members abstaining from the vote.” Id. at 16. This is exactly
what happened. Id. Gaia also points out that regulators never raised any concerns about loans
between the BOL and IBB. Id.
5. 	IBB’s $7 Million Loan to BOL
Gaia examined the $7 million transaction mentioned in the Indictment, in which “IBB
down streamed cash into BOL Bancshares, Inc. (Holdco) the proceeds of which were further
down streamed into BOL in the form of additional equity.” Id. “Holdco is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the IBB[.]” Id. Holdco “holds the IBB’s ownership position (common voting
shares) in BOL.” Id. According to Gaia, the “purpose of these loan transactions was to increase
Case 2:24-cr-20070-DDC Document 363 Filed 05/01/26 Page 8 of 19

9
the tangible capital base of BOL necessitated by the growth of its balance sheet in the 2020-2022
period.” Id.
Gaia opines that this transaction was structured in a manner “typical for the industry.” Id.
at 17. He explains how these transactions work. Id. He points out “that the $7 million
transaction was actually a refinance of a prior $5 million transaction from the MORE Fund.” Id.
And Gaia emphasizes that McCall and the BOL board knew about this transaction. Id. To the
extent McCall criticized the approval process to the FBI, Gaia has two responses: (i) “the FDIC
viewed the injection of this capital into BOL very favorably” and (ii) “there was a legitimate
business reason for the transaction.” Id.
6. 	Marketing and International Travel
Gaia has more to say about McCall—much more. McCall’s 302 describes some
expenditures: BOL-sponsored pheasant hunts attended by union-connected officials and 2014 to
2019 trips to Italy that McCall deemed “fruitless.” Id. at 17–18. BOL reimbursed McCall for
these trips, but, in McCall’s view, these expenditures didn’t qualify as legitimate business
expenses. Id. at 18. Gaia admits that the Indictment doesn’t include these expenditures. Id. He
nonetheless launches into a story about Jones’s active involvement in the Labor Strategy at the
BOL. Id.
Gaia asserts that Jones and Creeden had developed many contacts in the collective-
bargaining world in their roles at IBB. Id. Gaia mentions the BOL opening a Washington, D.C.,
office in 2015 “to establish relationships with national labor organizations[.]” Id. On the trips to
Italy, Gaia notes that emails show “McCall was directly involved in planning the business
agenda for these meetings.” Id. On a 2018 trip to Italy, McCall met with a BOL customer and
an Italian fishing cooperative. Id. In October 2019, the BOL sponsored an event that had a co-
sponsor, ULLICO. Id. Gaia asserts that “ULLICO’s national focus is identical in nature to the
Case 2:24-cr-20070-DDC Document 363 Filed 05/01/26 Page 9 of 19

10
Labor Strategy of BOL.” Id. at 19. From this, Gaia opines, “Jones’[s] strategy was not unique
and untested but rather appears to be an effort to duplicate a successful nationally-focused and
proven business strategy targeting the commercial and retail banking sector.” Id.
Gaia then goes in for the kill. He points out that “McCall was a willing participating in
multiple European excursions with Jones.” Id. And McCall was “responsible for recommending
to the [B]oard Compensation Committee annual salary increases for all BOL employees,
including Jones.” Id. Gaia opines that McCall’s “current criticisms are inconsistent with his
actions over a twelve year period.” Id. Gaia calls McCall “an enabler, not a victim.” Id. As a
BOL executive and board member, “McCall had a fiduciary and ethical duty . . . to act in the best
interests of the company.” Id. So, in Gaia’s view, if McCall was “truly concerned about the
ethical nature of these events, his duty could have taken the form of objecting directly to Jones,
reporting his concerns to internal audit, informing regulators, or ultimately resigning.” Id.
McCall didn’t do any of these things. Gaia thus accuses McCall of electing “to ‘eat at the same
table’ as the man he accused of defrauding BOL.” Id.
The court now turns to Gaia’s final bucket of opinions—ones describing the positive
effect that Jones and Creeden had for the BOL.
C. 	Jones and Creeden’s Impact at the BOL
Recall that Gaia credits Jones and Creeden with implementing the Labor Strategy. Id. at
22. Gaia opines that the Labor Strategy improved the relative and absolute performance of the
bank. Id. at 19. Gaia uses peer-group comparisons to demonstrate this conclusion. Id. at 19–20.
According to Gaia, “[h]istorically, BOL was a chronic financial underperformer in its peer
group.” Id. at 20. Gaia then provides the following data points, based on BOL’s performance
from 2012 to 2022:
• 	Earning asset yields improved from 14th to 28th percentile in BOL’s peer group. Id.
Case 2:24-cr-20070-DDC Document 363 Filed 05/01/26 Page 10 of 19

11
• 	Net interest income improved as the Labor Strategy gained traction, and BOL rose
from the 12th to the 31st percentile in its peer group. Id.
• 	BOL’s expense ratio initially rose because the Labor Strategy required new
infrastructure, but since has improved dramatically and, by 2022, approached peer-
group levels. Id. at 21.
• 	Operating income increased 43%, “driven by the successful rollout of the Labor
Strategy.” Id. at 22.
In sum, Gaia opines that Jones, Creeden, and their Labor Strategy, “had a meaningful, beneficial
and long-term impact on” the BOL. Id.
Concluding its summary of Gaia’s opinions, the court now evaluates the government’s
challenge to these opinions, beginning with the governing legal standard.
II. 	Legal Standard
Under Rule 702, the court bears a “gatekeeping obligation” to determine whether expert
testimony is admissible. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147 (1999) (citing
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993)). When it performs this
gatekeeping role, the court has broad discretion. Kieffer v. Weston Land, Inc., 90 F.3d 1496,
1499 (10th Cir. 1996). Courts exercise this discretion under the standard adopted in Fed. R.
Evid. 702, a rule providing:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training,
or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent
demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the
trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods
to the facts of the case.
Case 2:24-cr-20070-DDC Document 363 Filed 05/01/26 Page 11 of 19

12
Fed. R. Evid. 702.
“Rule ‘702 requires the district court to ensure that an expert’s testimony both rests on a
reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.’” United States v. Earls, 129 F.4th 850,
862 (10th Cir. 2025) (quoting Bill Barrett Corp. v. YMC Royalty Co., 918 F.3d 760, 770 (10th
Cir. 2019) (per curiam)). Courts perform the Rule 702 inquiry in two stages. First, the court
must “decide whether the proffered expert is qualified ‘by knowledge, skill, experience, training,
or education’ to render an opinion.” Id. (quoting Bill Barrett Corp., 918 F.3d at 770). Second,
the court “‘must satisfy itself that the proposed expert testimony is both reliable and relevant, in
that it will assist the trier of fact, before permitting a jury to assess such testimony.’” Nacchio,
555 F.3d at 1241 (quoting United States v. Rodriguez-Felix, 450 F.3d 1117, 1122 (10th Cir.
2006)).
“The proponent of expert testimony bears the burden of showing that the testimony is
admissible.” Conroy v. Vilsack, 707 F.3d 1163, 1168 (10th Cir. 2013) (citing Nacchio, 555 F.3d
at 1241). “[R]ejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule.” Fed. R. Evid.
702 advisory committee’s note to 2000 amendments.
III. 	Analysis
Of the many ways to challenge an expert, the government has opted to deploy two against
Gaia: relevance and reliability. Doc. 212 at 2–7. The court addresses each one, in turn, below.
A. 	Relevance
The government asserts that Gaia’s opinions are irrelevant. Doc. 212 at 5. The
touchstone of relevance is whether an expert is helpful. Fed. R. Evid. 702(a) requires that an
expert “help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue[.]”
“Clearly, expert testimony does not ‘help’ if it is unrelated to facts at issue[.]” 29 Wright &
Miller’s Federal Practice & Procedure § 6265.2 (2d ed. 2026). “The most important factor in
Case 2:24-cr-20070-DDC Document 363 Filed 05/01/26 Page 12 of 19

13
determining whether expert testimony will ‘help’ is the jury’s need for expert testimony to
accurately determine the facts.” Id. So, “expert testimony helps where it clarifies esoteric
matters beyond the ken of most lay people.” Id. On the other hand, “expert opinion testimony
may not be helpful where there is other evidence or other means to put the jury in a position to
accurately decide the facts.” Id. The government’s attacks on the relevance of Gaia’s opinions
fall into three categories: the BOL’s performance, the $7 million loan, and witness credibility.
The court considers each one, in turn, below.
The government first asserts that the BOL’s performance is irrelevant because it bears no
connection with whether Jones and Creeden arranged for no-show employment at the BOL. Id.
at 5. In a similar vein, the government argues that the Labor Strategy’s success is irrelevant. Id.
at 6. In essence, the government wants the jury to analyze Jones and Creeden’s efforts at the
BOL in a vacuum. The court rejects this approach. Accusing the leadership of a bank of no-
show employment opens the door to a lot of evidence. Gaia asserts that not only did Jones and
Creeden perform work, they performed work that improved several metrics for the BOL. And
it’s natural for a jury to wonder if a leaderless organization floundered. So, evidence of the
BOL’s success will help the jury understand whether Jones and Creeden did their jobs.
Next, the government argues that Gaia’s opinion about the FDIC’s favorable opinion of
the $7 million loan from IBB to the BOL is irrelevant. Id. at 7. The government asserts—and
Gaia admits—that the concerns about this loan arise from the approval process, not the
transaction itself. Id.; see also Doc. 221-1 at 17. So, in the government’s view, evidence about
the transaction itself is irrelevant. Again, the government wants the jury to examine the
transaction in a vacuum. But Gaia provides helpful context about this transaction—i.e., the
structure of the transaction was “typical for the industry” and the “transaction was actually a
Case 2:24-cr-20070-DDC Document 363 Filed 05/01/26 Page 13 of 19

14
refinance of a prior $5 million transaction[.]” Doc. 221-1 at 17. By accusing defendants of
impropriety with this transaction, the government has opened the door to important context
surrounding the transaction. The court finds this evidence relevant because it “clarifies esoteric
matters beyond the ken of most lay people.” Wright & Miller § 6265.2.
Finally, the government argues that Gaia improperly opines on the credibility of other
witnesses. This argument finds more success. “The credibility of witnesses is generally not an
appropriate subject for expert testimony.” United States v. Adams, 271 F.3d 1236, 1245 (10th
Cir. 2001) (quotation cleaned up). This is so because “such testimony [1] usurps a critical
function of the jury, [2] is not helpful to the jury, which can make its own determination of
credibility, and [3] the testimony of impressively qualified experts on the credibility of other
witnesses is prejudicial and unduly influences the jury.” United States v. Hill, 749 F.3d 1250,
1261 (10th Cir. 2014) (quotation cleaned up).
Take, for example, United States v. Samara, 643 F.2d 701 (10th Cir. 1981). In that case,
the government prosecuted the defendant, an attorney, for unpaid taxes and adduced evidence
from defendant’s clients who had paid him for his services. Id. at 702. This evidence
demonstrated defendant’s gross receipts. Id. The Samara defendant proffered an expert to rebut
this evidence. Id. at 705. The expert prepared “a summary purporting to show that certain items
should be deleted from the government’s showing of gross receipts” because of “witness
credibility”—i.e., “felony convictions and lack of documentation.” Id. Our Circuit determined
that the district court properly had rejected this defense expert because (i) the witnesses the
expert had attacked “were subject to defense cross-examination” and (ii) an expert “may not go
so far as to usurp the exclusive function of the jury to weigh the evidence and determine
credibility.” Id. (quotation cleaned up).
Case 2:24-cr-20070-DDC Document 363 Filed 05/01/26 Page 14 of 19

15
So too here. Gaia attacks McCall, Martin, and Elder. Gaia opines that McCall
contradicted himself by telling regulators about the importance of Jones’s Labor Strategy, only to
later accuse Jones of being uninvolved. Doc. 221-1 at 12–13. Gaia criticizes McCall for
flagging the Italy trips to the FBI but willingly going on those trips. Id. at 19. And, of course,
there’s Gaia’s big swing: McCall was a fiduciary, so, if he had concerns, he should’ve done
something about them. Id. But McCall didn’t. These opinions plainly attack McCall’s
credibility. For Martin, Jones’s special assistant, Gaia also opines that she knew little about his
activities, and therefore, her “testimony has little to no value in understanding Jones’[s] roles at
IBB or BOL and is of no relevance to the allegations against Jones.” Id. at 14. And Gaia
concludes that Elder, IBB’s head of human resources, had little contact with Jones, so her
accusation that Jones had a no-show job is unreliable. Id. The government is correct. Gaia is
opining on witness credibility. And under binding Circuit precedent, he can’t do so.
To avoid this result, defendants try to draw a line between (i) an expert opining about a
witness’s credibility about the facts and (ii) an expert challenging the reliability of another
witness’s opinion. Doc. 221 at 6. Unfortunately for defendants, there’s no support in the case
law for this distinction. Hill, which steps through our Circuit’s caselaw on this issue, never
differentiates between a witness’s credibility and the reliability of a witness’s opinion. See 749
F.3d at 1258–60. Defendants grasp at our Circuit’s line of cases that allow for an expert to opine
on the reliability of eyewitness identifications. Doc. 221 at 6. But this area of expertise has
developed from research that identified “factors that are helpful to evaluating the reliability of an
eyewitness’s identification of a suspect[.]” United States v. Rodriguez-Felix, 450 F.3d 1117,
1123 (10th Cir. 2006). Experts on the reliability of eyewitness identification evaluate “cross-
racial identification, identification after a long delay, identification after observation under stress,
Case 2:24-cr-20070-DDC Document 363 Filed 05/01/26 Page 15 of 19

16
and such psychological phenomena as the feedback factor and unconscious transference.” Id.
(quotation cleaned up). Gaia, in contrast, has no such research-based factors on which to base
his opinion about the reliability of McCall, Martin, and Elder. He merely takes a different view
of the facts and, in so doing, attempts “to usurp the exclusive function of the jury to weigh the
evidence and determine credibility.” Samara, 643 F.2d at 705 (quotation cleaned up).
The court thus finds Gaia’s criticisms of McCall, Martin, and Elder’s credibility
irrelevant. And it excludes them on this basis.
B. 	Reliability
The government also launches a broad attack against Gaia’s methodology, calling it
clearly “insufficient and unreliable[.]” Doc. 212 at 5. For experts in nonscientific topics, “the
meaning of a ‘reliable method’ is unclear.” Atchison v. Jackson, No. 21-cv-286-JDR-SH, 2026
WL 36454, at *4 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 6, 2026). “The Daubert factors (peer review, publication,
potential error rate, etc.) simply are not applicable to nonscientific testimony, whose reliability
depends heavily on the knowledge and experience of the expert, rather than the methodology or
theory behind it.” Am. Auto. Ins. Co. v. First Mercury Ins. Co., No. 13:CV-439 MCA/LF, 2017
WL 4410780, at *3 (D.N.M. Sept. 30, 2017) (quotation cleaned up). Put simply, in “a non-
scientific context, the reliability of an expert’s methodology often will be a function of accepted
practice in the area of expertise in question.” Wright & Miller § 6268.1. “Rule 702 does not
exclude witnesses from relying on their experience when opining on an issue where that
experience is relevant.” Atchison, 2026 WL 36454, at *4.
The court notes that the government hasn’t challenged Gaia’s qualifications. And he
worked for many years as a bank chairman. Doc. 221-1 at 4. Gaia also describes how his role
shifted from daily operations to strategy over time. Id. He asserts that his “responsibilities,
broadly speaking, were similar to those of Newton Jones and William Creeden at Bank of
Case 2:24-cr-20070-DDC Document 363 Filed 05/01/26 Page 16 of 19

17
Labor.” Id. So, to the extent that Gaia’s reliability depends on his knowledge and expertise, the
court doesn’t have any concerns—nor did the government identify any.
The government argues that Gaia’s opinions are “simply speculative statements” and
merely “a re-imagining of the bank and Jones’[s] performance in the most self-serving manner
possible.” Doc. 212 at 5. The court doesn’t see it that way at all. Gaia didn’t conjure his
opinions out of thin air. He reviewed BOL employees’ statements to the FBI, grand-jury
testimony, and reports by regulators. Doc. 221-1 at 27–28. These documents, combined with
Gaia’s experience, suffice to render his opinions reliable—with one exception—as discussed
below.
For his opinion that BOL was a slow-growth bank, Gaia cites BOL’s position in its peer
group and asserts that its profit performance “was the subject of continued concern from
regulators.” Id. at 7. For his opinion that Jones focused on strategy and Creeden helped
implement that strategy, Gaia cites (i) a 2015 state bank examination report that says as much
and (ii) a board member’s FBI interview describing Jones’s role as strategic. Id. at 7–8. For his
opinion that Jones developed and drove the Labor Strategy, he cites a 2015 state bank exam
report. Id. at 7. He also cites Robert’s statements to the FBI about Jones’s vision for the BOL,
id. at 8, and Richard’s statement to the FBI about the value of Jones’s leadership, id. at 12.
For his opinion that the Labor Strategy positively affected the BOL, Gaia cites figures
showing that BOL’s labor division grew the fastest of any BOL business from November 2020
to April 2022. Id. at 11. Further demonstrating the BOL’s success, Gaia provides figures
showing positive trends in BOL’s earning asset yields, net interest income, expense ratio, and
operating income. Id. at 20–22. And he puts those figures into perspective by comparing BOL’s
earning asset yields, net interest income, and expense ratio to its peer group. Id. at 20–21.
Case 2:24-cr-20070-DDC Document 363 Filed 05/01/26 Page 17 of 19

18
Gaia’s opinion that regulators would have flagged Jones’s undue influence on the board
is based on his understanding of annual safety and soundness exams—i.e., such an exam
would’ve flagged any indication of a lack of board independence. Id. at 15. For his opinion that
the loan transactions from BOL to IBB were arm’s length ones, Gaia reviewed bank-examiner
reports from 2015, 2016, 2019, and 2022 and found no Regulation W concerns. Id. Gaia also
suggests that the BOL should’ve applied Regulation O to the loan and that the BOL followed
Regulation O’s requirements. Id. at 16. And for his opinion about the $7 million transaction
from IBB to the BOL, Gaia cites common industry practices, explains that the $7 million
transaction was a refinance, and mentions that the FDIC viewed the transaction “very favorably.”
Id. at 17. All of this suffices to render Gaia’s opinions reliable.
The sole issue the court finds unreliable is Gaia’s opinion that Jones and Creeden’s
compensation grew proportionally to the success of their Labor Strategy. Gaia provides a chart
showing that when BOL’s net interest income and total deposits increased, Jones’s wages
increased. Id. at 12. This chart suffices to make Gaia’s opinion about Jones’s wages reliable.
But the charts and income figures make no mention of Creeden. See id. at 12–13. Yet Gaia
wants to opine about the compensation of both Jones and Creeden. The court finds that Gaia
hasn’t provided enough information to make his opinion about Creeden’s salary compared to
BOL’s growth reliable, so it bars him for testifying to this opinion.
In sum, the court finds that Gaia has provided a logical basis for his opinions—except his
opinion about Creeden’s salary, as just mentioned. And when “a logical basis exists for the
expert’s opinion[,] the weaknesses in the underpinnings of the opinion go to the weight and not
the admissibility of the testimony.” Fish v. Kobach, 304 F. Supp. 3d 1027, 1041 (D. Kan. 2018)
(quotation cleaned up); see also Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596 (“Vigorous cross-examination,
Case 2:24-cr-20070-DDC Document 363 Filed 05/01/26 Page 18 of 19

19
presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the
traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.”).
IV. 	Conclusion
The court grants the government’s request to exclude Gaia’s opinions—in part. It bars
Gaia from testifying about the credibility of other witnesses. And it bars him from testifying that
Creeden’s BOL salary rose proportionally to the BOL’s improved financial status.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT the part of the
government’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Certain Expert Testimony (Doc. 212) directed at
Gaia is granted in part and denied in part. The court now has ruled the entirety of that motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 1st day of May, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree______
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge
Case 2:24-cr-20070-DDC Document 363 Filed 05/01/26 Page 19 of 19