DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
JAMAL HAYNES, GARMAINE HALL, 
RHUDEL HUYGHUE, 
Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
 
) 
 
) 
Criminal No. 2017-31 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
)  
) 
) 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
Joycelyn Hewlett, Acting United States Attorney 
Delia L. Smith, AUSA 
United States Attorney’s Office 
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
 
For the United States of America, 
 
Pamela L. Colon 
Law Offices of Pamela L. Colon 
St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 
 
For Jamal Haynes, 
 
Leonard B. Francis  
Law Offices of Leonard B. Francis Jr. 
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
 
For Garmaine Hall, 
 
Rosh D. Alger 
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
 
For Rhudel Huyghue. 
 
ORDER 
GÓMEZ, J. 
 
Before the Court is the motion of Rhudel Huyghue 
(“Huyghue”) to exclude the testimony and report of the United 
States’s proposed expert witness, Carmelo Gomez (“Gomez”).  
Case: 3:17-cr-00031-CVG-RM   Document #: 101   Filed: 12/20/17   Page 1 of 4
United States v. Haynes, et al. 
Criminal No. 2017-31 
Order 
Page 2 
 
 
On June 28, 2017, the Grand Jury returned an indictment 
charging Huyghue with (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to 
distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 
846; (2) possession with intent to distribute cocaine in 
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and (3) money laundering 
conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). 
 
Huyghue was arraigned on August 10, 2017. Following 
Huyghue’s arraignment, the Magistrate Judge entered a scheduling 
order for this matter. In relevant part, the scheduling order 
provided that expert disclosures were to be filed by September 
15, 2017. 
 
At 9:13 A.M. on August 25, 2017, the United States filed a 
document captioned “United States’ Notice of Expert Witness” 
(the “notice”). See ECF No. 48. The notice indicated that the 
United States intended to have Gomez testify at Huyghue’s trial 
“as to the kinds, amounts, net and gross weights, purity, and 
form of the narcotics.” Id. The notice stated that “[a] copy of 
the Laboratory Report and Mr. Gomez’s Curriculum Vitae [(“CV”] 
are attached as Exhibits A and B, that were previously disclosed 
in discovery.” Id.  
 
Exhibit A to the notice is a lab report on 18,673 grams of 
a substance determined to be cocaine. The report indicates that 
the analysis was conducted by Gomez. Exhibit B is Gomez’s CV. 
Case: 3:17-cr-00031-CVG-RM   Document #: 101   Filed: 12/20/17   Page 2 of 4
United States v. Haynes, et al. 
Criminal No. 2017-31 
Order 
Page 3 
 
 
At 3:58 P.M. on August 25, 2017, the United States filed a 
document captioned “United States’ Corrected Notice of Expert 
Witness” (the “corrected notice”). See ECF No. 49. The corrected 
notice indicated that the United States intended to have Scott 
W. Goodlin (“Goodlin”), a forensic chemist, testify “as to the 
kinds, amounts, net and gross weights, purity, and form of the 
narcotics.” Id. The corrected notice stated that “[a] copy of 
the Laboratory Report, Mr. Goodlin’s [CV], and a Summary of 
Testimony are attached as Exhibits A, B and C, which were 
previously disclosed in discovery.” Id. 
 
Exhibit A to the corrected notice is a lab report on 2,872 
grams of a substance determined to be cocaine. The lab report 
indicates that the analysis was conducted by Goodlin. Exhibit B 
is Goodlin’s CV. Exhibit C is a summary of Goodlin’s proposed 
testimony.  
 
On August 29, 2017, Huyghue filed a motion to exclude 
Gomez’s testimony and report. Huyghue asserted that neither the 
lab report prepared by Gomez nor Gomez’s CV had been previously 
disclosed during discovery. Huyghue sought to exclude Gomez’s 
testimony and his report pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 
Procedure 16 (“Rule 16”). 
 
On November 22, 2017, the United States responded to 
Huyghue’s motion to exclude. The United States indicated that it 
Case: 3:17-cr-00031-CVG-RM   Document #: 101   Filed: 12/20/17   Page 3 of 4
United States v. Haynes, et al. 
Criminal No. 2017-31 
Order 
Page 4 
 
did not intend to call Gomez as a witness and the notice 
indicating as much was in error. Instead, the United States 
intended to call Goodlin as an expert, as stated in the 
corrected notice. As such, the United States indicated that it 
does not oppose Huyghue’s motion to exclude Gomez’s testimony 
and report. 
 
The premises considered, it is hereby 
 
ORDERED that, insofar as they seek to exclude the testimony 
of Carmelo Gomez and Carmelo Gomez’s report, the motions to 
exclude docketed at ECF Numbers 53, 73, and 82 are MOOT.  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
S\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Curtis V. Gómez 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
District Judge 
 
Case: 3:17-cr-00031-CVG-RM   Document #: 101   Filed: 12/20/17   Page 4 of 4