conviction should be reversed because the trial court admitted improper and unfairly prejudicial drug code testimony from both an expert and a lay witness the improper admission of this evidence to private mr mallock out of a fair trial  drug code without requiring the expert to explain his methodology and how his experience in prior lot in foresman led to the conclusions that he reached in violation of federal rule after and seven o two under rule seven  experts who offer opinions based on their experience are required to explain how that experience leads to the conclusion reached why that experience is sufficient basis for the opinion and how that experience is reliably applied to the any expert testimony as to drug code words or do you agree that it's proper in drug cases but it  to explain how his principles have been reliably applied to the facts of the case there was no objection to officer reynolds testimony those that were here in plain air review this is not the kind of error that affects substantial rights or calls into question the integrity of the proceeding yes your honor that's correct there was no objection at trial and we are here on playing our however this the evidence the expert testimony was highly prejudicial to mr mallock john's face and it and the government's case would have been significantly less persuasive without it first this evidence was key to the government's case transcripts of audio and video recordings played a central role in the case and there was no mention of drugs or cocaine in any of those transcripts thus the drug code testimony was necessary to transform the potentially innocuous statements into admissions of drug trafficking and it was so important that the government so important to the government's case nothing has been that the deal was about drugs right then why evidence is of physical pain right why i it's not disputed that cocaine was ultimately recovered by lever what is in dispute is whether mr mallock was talking about drugs when he was interacting with the special agent the undercover agent during the there was most of the evidence at trial really was circumstantial the only direct evidence was agent on the door who testified that he participated in a drug sale was mr mallock got this from allegan however testified that he was not a part of that drug sale as a credibility was a key issue at trial and the experts testimony corroborated and reinforced the testimony of agent on the door making it much more likely that the jury would and johnson the government presented testimony of a cia agent to interpret certain words in phone calls as drug code when the government asked the agent how the agent knew that cocaine was the subject of their conversation agent replied just based on other calls that's very similar to the type of testimony that the agent ok the expert gave in this case on appeal the th circuit expressed doubt that the agent's testimony would have been admitted as expert testimony under rule seven hundred and two noting that although the agent repeatedly indicated that you had expertise he provided virtually no methodology or guiding principles that would enable him to decode the wiretap phone calls in th and this context we would submit that it's even more important to be vigilant and require that the expert articulate his methodology because as a rd circuit has recognized and united states versus wheeler there's a danger that an expert brought in to interpret drug code might give a drug related meaning to every phase simply because it is a period in a drug trial so i'd like to move to the nd error which has to do with lay opinion evidence so the nd error committed by the district court was its improper admission of lay opinion testimony that certain of knowledge on statements were drug coded in violation of federal rule evidence seven to one w lying at least in part on his experience as a as a jew and in many drug and narcotics investigations and the fact that the agent participated in the conversation and interacted with it was part of the investigation does it necessarily decide the issue that's actually this court decision in the united states versus york and that case the agent was a part of the conversation he was a part of the investigation however he relied in interpretating interpret in the drug code in that case he relied more on his experience than on his there's no dispute here that agent ronald's was qualified as an expert based on his eighteen years of law enforcement experience and over a one hundred previous narcotics investigations and in fact agent reynolds did explain that experience  in his testimony before he offered his interpretation of the transcript he explained how drug dealers used code words to conceal their activity conceal what they're talking about and included it common terms from his experience like tickets to refer to money parts or pieces to refer to drug quantities and using just a number when referring to a quantity without referencing the nine so you explain like one would be one kil you this converse a criminal one in the eyes of a jury this really is cross examination the only protection against an expert over addition to present them a nation which occurred in this case there's the jury instruction the next which was given in this case in the johnson case relied on by the appellant there was no jury instruction but expert testimony and the court that based on his experience some of the terms being used here are typical like parts and pieces which show up in the in the transcripts he explained tickets can mean money from his previous experience and i do so here so the concern about everyday language becoming drug code just by reading into it is not present here because they're working to a journalist did tie it to raise previous experience and then he  looked throughout the transcripts to interpret those key terms and others he testified about you know portion of the transcripts there was thirty seven pages approximately of transcripts publi in the garage and video transcript want to have it reynolds recognize that where he says the two of them are guaranteed two of them refers to the quantity of drugs here like he has experience referring to kilograms and court pointed out he testified as to conversations where he was there he made reference to what he was trying to convey to the defendant hand gestures being made by the defendant towards just a few points and robot will drone or you asked my opponent if there is a concern here about everyday drug code becoming everyday language becoming drug code and that danger is present in this case reynolds never connected his prior experience to the facts of this case in fact he never once himself mentioned his experience or training when explaining the basis for his conclusion that mr mallock gun use drug code the government is trying to piece together and after the fact methodology based on bits and pieces of the transcript but that's not sufficient and the jury is entitle to hear and on the record explanation when directly asked for the basis for his for his conclusions and on the record explanation for his methodology i would pointed to his experience he never pointed to context clues he never mentioned patterns and that is that it is the testimony that he did give is just simply not enough to meet the standard just to return quickly to the issue of prejudice scene of the deal so that's hard to say that a writer make a skirmish out foundation for expert or lay opinion testimony made any difference here has been l