USA v. Claus

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	CRIMINAL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 24-155
CHRISTIAN CONRAD CLAUS 	SECTION “R” (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the government’s motion 	in limine 	to admit
summary evidence and expert evidence.1 	Defendant did not object to the
proposed testimony of government expert Amanda Winstead. 	Defendant
objects to the government’s motion as it relates to the summary evidence
charts, arguing that it is premature. 2
I. 	BACKGROUND
On June 28, 2024, the government filed an indictment charging
Christian Conrad Claus with one count of conspiracy to commit mail and
wire fraud in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349; one
count of wire fraud in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343;
one count of mail fraud in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
1 	R. Doc. 27.
2 	R. Doc. 53.
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 70 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 9

2
1341; one count of conspiracy to use a facility in interstate commerce in aid
of bribery in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371; one count
of use of a facility in interstate commerce in aid of bribery in violation of Title
18, United States Code, Section 1952(a)(3); and false statement in violation
of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2). 3
The government’s allegations include that, beginning around October
2019 and continuing through around June 2021, defendant conspired with
Fouad K. Zeton and Michael Jon Schofield to “devise, intend to devise, and
participate in a scheme to defraud and to obtain money and property by
means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and
promises.” 4 	The government alleges that defendant conspired with Zeton
and 	Schofield 	to 	defraud 	an 	insurance 	company 	that 	covered 	Zeton’s
belongings by reporting that valuable artworks were stolen from Zeton’s
home. 5
Trial is set for March 16, 2026.6 The government now brings a motion
in limine to admit expert and summary chart evidence.7 Defendant, through
former counsel, filed a response stating that he did not object to the motion
3 	R. Doc. 1.
4 	Id. at 6.
5 	Id. at 1-21.
6 	R. Doc. 46.
7 	R. Doc. 27.
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 70 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 9

3
in limine, subject to the ability to perform cross-examination. 8 	Defendant,
through current counsel, now objects to the government’s motion as it
pertains to the summary charts. 9 The Court considers the motion below.
II. 	LAW AND ANALYSIS
Federal 	Rule 	of 	Evidence 	104 	obliges 	the 	Court 	to 	“decide 	any
preliminary question about whether . . . evidence is admissible.” 	Fed. R.
Evid. 104(a). 	In making this preliminary determination, “the court is not
bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege.” Id.
A. Expert Testimony
The Court first addresses the proposed expert testimony. 	Rule 702
provides 	that 	a 	witness 	“qualified 	as 	an 	expert 	by 	knowledge, 	skill,
experience, training, or education” may provide opinion testimony so long
as the proponent of the testimony
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.
8 	R. Doc. 33.
9 	R. Doc. 53.
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 70 Filed 01/08/26 Page 3 of 9

4
Fed. R. Evid. 702. The district court, in its role as a gatekeeper, is charged
with ensuring that the relevance and reliability requirements of Rule 702 are
satisfied. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579,
589 (1993); see also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147-48
(1999) (clarifying that the Daubert gatekeeping obligation applies to all
forms of expert testimony).
The government states that it intends to qualify Ms. Winstead as an
expert in fine and decorative art, including in the appraisal of fine and
decorative art and in the fine and decorative art industries. The government
has furnished Ms. Winstead’s curriculum vitae (“CV”), which provides that
she is a member of the Appraisers Association of America, has more than 25
years of employment as an art appraiser, and holds a Bachelor of Arts in Art
History from Tulane University. The government additionally identified the
three areas of opinion testimony that Ms. Winstead is expected to provide:
first, appraisal practices and standards applicable to artwork and expected
in the art industry; second, opinions regarding obvious deficiencies in the
appraisal submitted in support of Zeton’s insurance claim; and third,
information contained in her expert report, which includes her descriptions
of the paintings underlying Zeton’s insurance claim and her opinion of their
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 70 Filed 01/08/26 Page 4 of 9

5
replacement values. 	Defendant has not raised any Rule 702 objection
relating to Ms. Winstead.
The Court, having reviewed Ms. Winstead’s CV, her expert report, and
the opinions that the government lays out, finds it more likely than not that
the testimony of the government’s expert art appraiser Amanda Winstead
satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Ms. Winstead’s
CV reflects that she possesses ample qualifications by virtue of her education,
training and experience as an art appraiser. See e.g., Fletcher v. Doig, 196 F.
Supp. 3d 817, 821 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (finding that “forty years of experience with
the authentication and marketing of modern art easily meet [the] standard”
for qualification as an expert witness); Davis v. Carroll, 937 F. Supp. 2d 390,
414 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (finding a proposed witness qualified to offer expert
testimony on art appraisal based on his “experience as a New York City
gallery owner for 20 years, his work as an art appraiser for 40 years, his prior
expert testimony as an art appraiser, advanced degrees. . . ,certifications in
the 	Uniform 	Standards 	of 	Professional 	Appraisal 	Practices, 	and 	his
membership in and status as former president of the Appraisers Association
of America”). 	The opinions outlined and the expert report on appraisal
standards and values are of the kind that someone with her listed experience
would be qualified to provide. Further, art appraisals, the appraisal process,
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 70 Filed 01/08/26 Page 5 of 9

6
and related issues are not commonly known, such that expert opinion
testimony would help the jury understand the evidence and determine fact
issues. 	Fed. R. Evid. 702(a). 	And there is no dispute that Ms. Winstead’s
proposed testimony “is based on sufficient facts or data,” specifically, her
physical inspection of the paintings at issue and determination of market
comparables. 	Fed. R. Evid. 702(b). 	There is likewise no dispute that the
proposed testimony is the product of “reliable principles and methods” that
are reliably applied to the facts of the case, including the application of the
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices and the Principles of
Practice and Code of Ethics of the American Society of Appraisers and the
Appraisers Association of America; the professional examination of the
paintings; and the use of the sales comparison approach to determine
replacement values. Fed. R. Evid. 702(c)-(d). The Court thus finds that the
government has shown it to be more likely than not that Ms. Winstead’s
proposed expert testimony satisfies the requirements of Rule 702.
B. Summary Charts
As to the summary evidence charts, the Court finds it appropriate to
issue a preliminary order on the admissibility of the proposed summary
evidence charts. 	The government anticipates presenting summaries that
extract information from records that would be impractical for the jury to
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 70 Filed 01/08/26 Page 6 of 9

7
directly analyze. 	The government represents that all source records have
been provided to the defense along with Bates numbers identifying all
records used to create the summary charts. 10 	The government argues that
the voluminous nature of this evidence and the impracticality of the jury’s
reviewing such underlying data support the government’s need for summary
charts.
Rule 1006(a) provides:
Summaries of Voluminous Materials Admissible as Evidence. 	The
court may admit as evidence a summary, chart, or calculation offered
to prove the content of voluminous admissible writings, recordings, or
photographs that cannot be conveniently examined in court, whether
or not they have been introduced into evidence.
Fed. R. Evid. 1006(a). The purpose of the Rule “is to permit alternative proof
of the content of writings, recordings, or photographs too voluminous to be
conveniently examined in court.” 	Id. cmt. 2024 Amendments. 	Rule 1006
“requires only that the underlying records be voluminous and that in-court
examination be inconvenient.” United States v. Duncan, 919 F.2d 981, 988
(5th Cir. 1991). And the records summarized need not have been introduced
into the record for the summaries to be admitted into evidence.
Here, the types of summary charts proposed, i.e., of defendant’s phone
contacts, location data, and timelines, encompass evidence that would
10 	See R. Docs. 27, 55.
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 70 Filed 01/08/26 Page 7 of 9

8
certainly be voluminous to the extent that it could not “be conveniently
examined in court.” Fed. R. Evid. 1006; see also United States v. Solis, 299
F.3d 420, 442 (affirming admission of “charts summarizing evidence of
communications between . . . defendants”); Rodgers v. Hopkins Enters. of
Mississippi LLC, 2018 WL 6335778, at *2 (E.D. La. Dec. 5, 2018) (finding
that a timeline exhibit was admissible under Rule 1006).
Defendant 	argues 	that 	the 	government’s 	motion 	in 	limine 	is
premature. The Court rejects this argument. As the government points out,
in limine rulings are preliminary, and the Court may, “in the exercise of
sound judicial discretion,” alter them. 	See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S.
38, 41-42 (1984); see also United States v. Weinstein, 2025 WL 438344, at
*13 (D.N.J. Feb. 9, 2025) (granting government’s motion in limine to permit
the testimony of a summary witness regarding the creation of summary
charts not yet produced to the defendant). The government is not seeking a
ruling that its proposed summary charts, not yet before the Court, 11 are all
admissible. The government is simply seeking an order confirming that the
types of charts it intends to offer conform with Rule 1006. 	Finding that
telephone contact charts, location charts, and timeline charts all fall within
11 	The Court notes that it has in its possession the three “example
charts.”
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 70 Filed 01/08/26 Page 8 of 9

9
the confines of Rule 1006, the Court finds it appropriate to rule on the
government’s motion. Should defendant have specific objections to the final
summary charts once he has reviewed them, he may raise such objections to
the Court.
***
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the government’s motion. This ruling
does not preclude defendant from objecting later to the final charts.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of January, 2026.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8th
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 70 Filed 01/08/26 Page 9 of 9