USA v. Sathre et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN SATHRE
Defendant.
Case No. 3:20-cr-00043-SLG
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND MOTION FOR DAUBERT
HEARING
Before the Court are two motions seeking pretrial evidentiary rulings. At
Docket 197 are the government’s Motions in Limine. Defendant Kevin Sathre
responded in opposition at Docket 209. At Docket 211 is Mr. Sathre’s Motion for
Daubert Hearing. The government responded in partial opposition at Docket 213.
The government seeks an order admitting three categories of evidence:
First, the government seeks to introduce expert testimony from a Drug
Enforcement Agency forensic chemist. Second, the government seeks to
introduce testimony of a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agent
regarding drug trafficking and specific terminology and jargon used in drug
trafficking. Third, the government seeks to introduce “other act” evidence,
Case 3:20-cr-00043-SLG-MMS Document 221 Filed 03/25/22 Page 1 of 9

Case No. 3:20-cr-00043-SLG, United States v. Sathre
Order Re Motions in Limine and Motion for Daubert Hearing
Page 2 of 9
specifically evidence of other occasions where Mr. Sathre is alleged to have sold
controlled substances.
I. DEA forensic chemist expert witness testimony
The government seeks to introduce expert testimony to prove that the
substance involved in this case was methamphetamine. The government has filed
the curriculum vitae and laboratory report of DEA forensic chemist Suk Fullbright.1
Mr. Sathre responds that he “requests the opportunity to voir dire the DEA chemist
on her qualifications and opinions prior to the Court ruling on the admissibility of
her testimony and reports.”2 In his motion for a Daubert hearing, Mr. Sathre
requests a hearing to address the reliability of the methods used by Ms. Fullbright.3
The Court addressed Mr. Sathre’s request for a hearing at a status
conference on March 24, 2022. For the reasons discussed on the record at the
status conference, the Court will allow the defense to briefly voir dire Ms. Fullbright
1 Docket 197-1; Docket 197-2.
2 Docket 209 at 5.
3 Docket 211 at 2.
Case 3:20-cr-00043-SLG-MMS Document 221 Filed 03/25/22 Page 2 of 9

Case No. 3:20-cr-00043-SLG, United States v. Sathre
Order Re Motions in Limine and Motion for Daubert Hearing
Page 3 of 9
outside the presence of the jury after trial has begun but before Ms. Fullbright
testifies.4
II. ATF agent testimony
The government seeks to introduce testimony from ATF Agent Thomas
King. The government asserts that Agent King will testify as an expert “based on
his familiarity with drug trafficking in Anchorage, Alaska,” and that he will explain
certain “slang and code words [used] when referring to drug transactions.”5 Mr.
Sathre responds that Agent King should not be permitted to testify as an expert as
to all of the proposed topics, because the topics do not all “require an expert to
assist the jury in understanding. These all would appear to be common
knowledge.”6 Mr. Sathre also asserts that “the Government has not established
that Agent King’s methodology or experience is reliable as applied to his particular
opinions in this case.”7 In his motion for a Daubert hearing, Mr. Sathre requested
a hearing to address the reliability of the methods used by Agent King.8
The Court addressed Mr. Sathre’s request for a hearing at a status
conference on March 24, 2022. For the reasons discussed on the record at the
4 See Docket 220 (minute entry of status conference).
5 Docket 197 at 6.
6 Docket 209 at 6
7 Docket 209 at 7.
8 Docket 211 at 2.
Case 3:20-cr-00043-SLG-MMS Document 221 Filed 03/25/22 Page 3 of 9

Case No. 3:20-cr-00043-SLG, United States v. Sathre
Order Re Motions in Limine and Motion for Daubert Hearing
Page 4 of 9
status conference, the Court will allow the defense to conduct a Daubert inquiry
prior to trial as to Agent King’s proposed expert testimony.9 A separate scheduling
order for that hearing will be issued in due course.
III. Other acts evidence
The government seeks to introduce evidence of other occasions when Mr.
Sathre allegedly sold methamphetamine. One set of acts occurred prior to the
charged conduct, and one other act occurred subsequent to the charged conduct.
Rule 404(b) prohibits the use of “[e]vidence of any other crime, wrong, or
act” to prove a person’s character to “show that on a particular occasion the person
acted in accordance with the character” but allows evidence to prove, inter alia,
intent, knowledge, motive, and absence of mistake.10 “Such evidence may be
admitted if: (1) the evidence tends to prove a material point; (2) the other act is not
too remote in time; (3) the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that defendant
committed the other act; and (4) [in cases where knowledge or intent are at issue,]
the act is similar to the offense charged.”11 If evidence of prior acts is inextricably
intertwined with the charged conduct, it is admissible irrespective of Rule 404(b).12
9 See Docket 220 (minute entry of status conference).
10 Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) (as amended 2020, effective Dec. 1, 2020).
11 United States v. Cox, 963 F.3d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Bailey, 696
F.3d 794, 799 (9th Cir. 2012)).
12 United States v. Lague, 971 F.3d 1032, 1038, n.5 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing United States v.
Beckman, 298 F.3d 788, 793 (9th Cir. 2002)).
Case 3:20-cr-00043-SLG-MMS Document 221 Filed 03/25/22 Page 4 of 9

Case No. 3:20-cr-00043-SLG, United States v. Sathre
Order Re Motions in Limine and Motion for Daubert Hearing
Page 5 of 9
The inextricably intertwined exception “applies when (1) particular acts of the
defendant are part of a single criminal transaction, or when (2) the “other act”
evidence is necessary for the government to offer a coherent story of the crime.”13
A. Prior drug transactions
The government seeks to “introduce evidence regarding Defendant’s prior
drug trafficking activities with co-defendant Schultz.”14 Specifically, the
government seeks only to elicit testimony from co-defendant Schultz and will not
introduce extrinsic evidence regarding the prior drug transactions.15 The
government contends that Schultz’s testimony “establishes the relationship
between Schultz and the Defendant, the reason for him to trust her brokering a
controlled substance transaction, his knowledge about narcotics and narcotics
transactions with her, his lack of mistake in engaging in such action, as well as the
general circumstances of the charged conduct.”16 The government maintains that
this evidence is inextricably intertwined with the charged conduct, but that
alternatively it is admissible pursuant to Rule 404(b).
Mr. Sathre responds that the government did not adequately specify what
prior drug transactions he allegedly participated in with co-defendant Schultz and
13 Id. (citing Beckman, 298 F.3d at 794).
14 Docket 197 at 9.
15 Docket 197 at 12.
16 Docket 197 at 11.
Case 3:20-cr-00043-SLG-MMS Document 221 Filed 03/25/22 Page 5 of 9

Case No. 3:20-cr-00043-SLG, United States v. Sathre
Order Re Motions in Limine and Motion for Daubert Hearing
Page 6 of 9
that the evidence should be excluded pursuant to Rule 403 because it is more
prejudicial than probative and will confuse the jury.
The government has not shown that the prior drug transactions between the
two Defendants are inextricably intertwined with the charged conduct because
there has been no showing that the acts are part of a single criminal transaction,
and at least on the current record, the government has not shown that the prior
drug transaction evidence is necessary for the government to offer a coherent story
of the charged crime. However, the proposed testimony about the prior drug
transactions meets the requirements of Rule 404(b). The evidence tends to prove
a material point, specifically the drug-based relationship between Mr. Sathre and
co-defendant Schultz. The prior acts are not too remote in time because they
occurred a few months prior to the charged conduct. The evidence is sufficient to
support a finding that Mr. Sathre committed the other act because the
uncorroborated statement of a single witness can be sufficient to admit Rule 404(b)
evidence.17 To the extent the government seeks to introduce the prior act
testimony to show Mr. Sathre’s knowledge or intent, the prior acts are sufficiently
similar to the charged conduct. The Court also finds that the probative value of
the proposed prior act testimony is not substantially outweighed by a danger of
17 United States v. Dhingra, 371 F.3d 557, 566 (9th Cir. 2004) (“the testimony of a single witness,
as present in this case, satisfies the low-threshold test of sufficient evidence for the purposes of
Rule 404(b)”).
Case 3:20-cr-00043-SLG-MMS Document 221 Filed 03/25/22 Page 6 of 9

Case No. 3:20-cr-00043-SLG, United States v. Sathre
Order Re Motions in Limine and Motion for Daubert Hearing
Page 7 of 9
unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting
time, or presenting unnecessary cumulative evidence.18
If the government introduces testimony regarding these prior drug
transactions, the parties may propose a limiting instruction to be given to the jury.
B. Subsequent drug transaction
The government seeks to introduce Rule 404(b) evidence that Mr. Sathre
was involved in another drug transaction approximately one month after the
charged conduct. The government maintains that this evidence proves a material
point, is very close in time to the charged conduct, is sufficient to prove the act
occurred, and is similar to the charged conduct.19 The government asserts that
Mr. Sathre’s “participation in a transaction involving methamphetamine and heroin
one month later demonstrates his familiarity with controlled substances. It
decreases the likelihood that he was in any way an unwitting pawn or made a
mistake in the November 19, 2018 transaction for which he is charged.”20 Mr.
Sathre responds that evidence of the subsequent drug transaction is not
18 Fed. R. Evid. 403.
19 Docket 197 at 15–16.
20 Docket 197 at 15.
Case 3:20-cr-00043-SLG-MMS Document 221 Filed 03/25/22 Page 7 of 9

Case No. 3:20-cr-00043-SLG, United States v. Sathre
Order Re Motions in Limine and Motion for Daubert Hearing
Page 8 of 9
admissible because there is insufficient evidence that he was selling drugs and the
transaction is not sufficiently similar to the charged conduct.21
The Court finds that this proposed evidence does not meet the requirements
of Rule 404(b) and Rule 403. The Court acknowledges that the proposed evidence
is not too remote in time, is sufficient to support a finding that the defendant
committed the other act, and has some similarity to the charged conduct.
However, the evidence has minimal probative value as to a material point. The
incident occurred one month after the charged conduct—its probative value relates
to Mr. Sathre’s knowledge of controlled substances and lack of mistake at the time
of that event, not one month prior. Moreover, the Court is allowing the government
to introduce testimony from co-defendant Schultz about multiple prior drug
transactions that involved Mr. Sathre so that the government can show identity,
knowledge, and lack of mistake, such that value of this cumulative is of lesser
import. Finally, the subsequent drug transaction is the basis of state criminal
charges pending against Mr. Sathre. Allowing the government to introduce this
evidence puts Mr. Sathre in a position of having to either defend those allegations
in a different forum, and with different defense counsel, or to allow the evidence to
21 Docket 209 at 10.
Case 3:20-cr-00043-SLG-MMS Document 221 Filed 03/25/22 Page 8 of 9

Case No. 3:20-cr-00043-SLG, United States v. Sathre
Order Re Motions in Limine and Motion for Daubert Hearing
Page 9 of 9
go unchallenged. The Court will not permit the government to present evidence
that may result in a trial within a trial in these circumstances.
On balance, the Court finds that the minimal probative value of the
subsequent drug transaction evidence is substantially outweighed by the risk of
unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting
time, and presenting unnecessary cumulative evidence.22
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the government’s motion in limine at Docket 197 is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as discussed herein. Defendant’s
motion for a Daubert hearing at Docket 211 is GRANTED as discussed herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 25th day of March, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22 Fed. R. Evid. 403.
Case 3:20-cr-00043-SLG-MMS Document 221 Filed 03/25/22 Page 9 of 9