TorrentFreak today had a post stating that the court "rejected" Dutch computer scientist Dr. Johan Pouwelse as a defense expert in the Joel Tenenbaum case, and implying that the court's actions resulted in an unfair trial. But the factual premise of TorrentFreak's post is false. Pouwelse was not "rejected" or otherwise excluded as a witness. Rather, upon the plaintiffs' motion (to which Tenenbaum never bothered to file an opposition), Judge Gertner limited Pouwelse's testimony to the subject of his actual expertise: peer-to-peer technology. Indeed, the plaintiffs never challenged his expertise on that issue. The only thing the court "rejected" was Pouwelse's proposed testimony on business and economic issues, subjects on which he admitted he lacks expertise.
It was entirely the choice of the defense team not to call Pouwelse to the witness stand. And calling him would have been a complete waste of time. The thrust of Pouwelse's expert testimony was criticism of MediaSentry and plaintiffs' expert Dr. Douglas Jacobson's conclusion that Tenenbaum had used KaZaA and other p2p applications to download and "share" music. But on the witness stand, Tenenbaum admitted to the activity of which he was accused, and in fact wholeheartedly endorsed Jacobson's opinions, calling him a "competent professional." And he acknowledged that MediaSentry had correctly identified him. Given Tenenbaum's admissions, it's hardly a surprise the defense chose not to call Pouwelse.