Opinion
Case No.: 2:08-CR-015.
April 29, 2009
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Second Motion for Expert Witnesses at Government's Expense (Doc. 44). For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED.
Defendant, Timothy L. Lantz, has been charged with transportation of visual depictions involving minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1); transportation of child pornography pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1) and (b)(1); possession of visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2); giving notice to exchange visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2251(d)(1)(B), (d)(2)(B), and (e); attempting to induce a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct to produce a visual depiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e); and failing to update a sex offender registration pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). Defendant is also charged with a forfeiture count. Defendant is indigent and counsel has been appointed to represent him pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.
Through Court-appointed counsel, Defendant moves this Court to issue an order permitting the payment of a forensic computer expert and a digital imaging expert, in excess of the statutory maximum pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(3), which provides:
(3) Maximum amounts. — Compensation to be paid to a person for services rendered by him to a person under this subsection, or to be paid to an organization for services rendered by an employee thereof, shall not exceed $1,600, exclusive of reimbursement for expenses reasonably incurred, unless payment in excess of that limit is certified by the court, or by the United States magistrate judge if the services were rendered in connection with a case disposed of entirely before him, as necessary to provide fair compensation for services of an unusual character or duration, and the amount of the excess payment is approved by the chief judge of the circuit. The chief judge of the circuit may delegate such approval authority to an active circuit judge.
"The decision to grant or deny a motion for expert services pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e) is committed to the sound discretion of the district court and may only be overturned upon a showing of abuse of discretion." United States v. Rinchack, 820 F.2d 1557, 1563 (11th Cir. 1987). Under Section 3006A(e), counsel for a defendant financially unable to obtain expert services for adequate representation may apply to the court for the needed funds. If the court finds that the services are necessary and that the defendant is financially unable to obtain them, the court may authorize counsel to obtain the services. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1); see also United States v. Harp, 282 Fed. Appx. 774, 776 (11th Cir. 2008).
Defendant's counsel represents that to adequately represent his client at the upcoming trial, he needs the assistance of an expert to review the Government's expert report and to be available as a rebuttal witness. Defendant has utilized the statutory amount of $1600, plus an additional $531.00. Defendant now seeks additional funds to pay for the necessary services of a qualified computer forensic expert and digital imaging expert. Defendant represents that due to the nature of the offenses, the serious consequences, and the highly technical evidence in this case, the expert is necessary to assist Defendant's counsel in analyzing the evidence and preparing for trial.
In light of the fact that this case is now going to trial, the Court agrees that the Defendant should be given additional funds for an expert to assist Defendant's counsel during the trial. "Technical expert witnesses are a necessary component of the assessment and presentation of a viable legal defense that is available to [child pornography defendants]." United States v. Knellinger, 471 F.Supp.2d 640, 649 (E.D. Va. 2007). The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Expert Witnesses at the Government's Expense and will allow Defendant to use an additional $2500.00 toward expert witness fees. This amount shall be used specifically for review and analysis of the Government's expert report and to sit at counsel table with Defendant's counsel only during the testimony of the Government's witnesses testifying regarding computer related matters, and as a rebuttal witness if necessary. The Court believes that this amount is more than adequate, however, should Defendant's counsel find that additional funding is necessary, the Court will entertain another motion for additional fees.
The clerk shall remove Document 44 from the Court's pending motions list.