The opinion of the court was delivered by: Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge
This matter comes before the Court on the government's Motion  in Limine to Preclude the Testimony of Walker Fowler Todd. For the reasons set forth below, the government's motion shall be granted.
In his Notice  of Intent to Offer Expert Testimony, defendant True identifies six topics on which his expert, Walker Fowler Todd ("Todd"), is expected to testify: (1) the creation of the United States monetary system; (2) the origins of bills of exchange ("BOE") and redemption theory; (3) enforcement actions of the United States to counter fraudulent use of BOEs; (4) the government's ability to identify fraudulent BOEs; (5) third party views of concerning the viability of BOEs and redemption theory; and (6) non-fraudulent purposes of defendant True's BOEs. The government seeks to preclude Todd from testifying on each of these topics. The Court will address whether Todd may testify on these topics in turn.
1. Creation of the United States Monetary System
The government contends that Todd's testimony on the creation of the United States monetary system is irrelevant. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 provides that "[e]vidence which is not relevant is not admissible." Relevant evidence is evidence that has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable that it would be without the evidence." Fed. R. Evid. 401.
Here, Todd's proposed testimony on the creation of the United States monetary system is not relevant because the monetary history of the United States is not at issue in this case. The jury will be able to understand the place of BOEs in the United States monetary system without an expert discussing at length the creation of that system. Indeed, his proposed testimony has no effect on "the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of this action." Id. Accordingly, the Court precludes Todd from testifying on the creation of the United States Monetary System.
2. Origins of BOEs and Redemption Theory
The government next contends that Todd's testimony on the origins of BOEs and redemption theory is irrelevant because Todd is expected to testify as to how BOEs and redemption theory were utilized in the United States by people who disagreed with the government's view regarding the nature of money and underpinnings of the federal tax system. Defendant True argues that Todd should be allowed to testify on this subject because Todd's testimony will assist the jury in determining whether he acted in good faith. The Court agrees with the government.
In Cheek v. United States, the Supreme Court held that "a defendant's views about the validity of the tax statutes are irrelevant to the issue of willfulness and need not be heard by the jury." 498 U.S. 192, 206 (1991). Although Cheek involved charges of willful failure to file tax returns and willful attempt to evade taxes, id. at 194, not mail fraud and conspiracy, the Court finds that its holding applies to this case. Disagreement with the tax laws is not a defense to the charges in the indictment. Moreover, expert testimony on BOEs and redemption theory will not assist the jury in determining whether defendant True acted in good faith because under Cheek, the good faith inquiry is subjective. Id. at 202. Thus, having an expert explain why individuals disagree with the tax system is irrelevant and may confuse or mislead the jury.
The third topic in defendant True's notice of expert testimony states that Todd "will testify regarding enforcement actions of the United States to counter the fraudulent use of [BOEs} and the Redemption Theory that underlies some of the BOEs utilized in the United States." (Notice  at ¶ 3.) The government argues that this testimony is inadmissible because the Court previously precluded defendants from introducing evidence regarding the government's exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Defendant True argues that Todd will not opine on the government's use of its prosecutorial discretion; rather he will testify about how the United States identifies fraudulent BOEs.
The enforcement actions taken by the government to counter fraudulent use of BOEs are irrelevant to this case. Although defendant True asserts in his opposition that Todd's testimony on this topic is about how the government identifies fraudulent BOEs, the language of the notice is clear that this topic covers "enforcement actions," and that topic four covers how the government identifies fraudulent BOEs. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-4.) Moreover, the enforcement actions taken by the government fall within the government's prosecutorial discretion, which the Court already prohibited. (Order , Nov. 9. ...