ORDER AND REASONS

IVAN L.R. LEMELLE, Senior District Judge.

Considering the Government's Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendant Vaccarella's Improper Expert Testimony (Rec. Doc. 251), Defendant Vaccarella's Consolidated Opposition to Government's Motion in Limine to Exclude Improper Experts' Testimony (Rec. Doc. 324), and the Government's Reply (Rec. Doc. 328),

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED to exclude expert evidence that a defendant had or did not have an intent to commit the crimes charged per F.R.E. 304(b) and U.S. v. Morin, 627 F.3d 985, 995 (5th Cir. 2010);

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED to exclude expert opinions that offer legal conclusions, as noted also in a prior order at Rec. Doc. 459, U.S. v. Milton, 555 F.2d 1198, 1203 (5th Cir. 1977);

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED to exclude Najolia's and Cook's "expert opinions" that try to define deliberate indifference or other legal standards; that try to state whether anyone has or has not violated the law; that try to argue any point of fact or law; tries to offer common sense conclusions; tries to accuse the Government of selective or bad faith prosecution; and tries to opine on the defendants or victim's state of mind. We are not inclined to receive both of these witnesses at trial, especially Najolia, in view of the obvious cumulative and substantially same "opinions." To the extent allowable under the F.R.E., defendants may submit admissible non-cumulative expert evidence to rebut the Government's admissible noncumulative expert evidence — provided no offer shall be made of any evidence in contravention of court orders.

Violations of any court order, including this one, will lead to the imposition of extreme sanctions. Prior to calling pertinent witnesses to testify at trial, Counsel of record will also notify their witnesses with a copy of this and prior evidentiary related rulings along with the foregoing caution.