Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-04072/USCOURTS-ca8-03-04072-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Walter Kerry Robertson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-4072

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Walter Kerry Robertson, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 14, 2004

Filed: October 13, 2004

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

BYE, Circuit Judge.

A jury convicted Walter Kerry Robertson of one count of possession with

intent to distribute over five grams of cocaine base (crack) in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1); one count of possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug

trafficking crime in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 924(c); and one count of being a felon

in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court1

sentenced Robertson to 180 months imprisonment to be followed by eight years

supervised release. On appeal, Robertson asserts the district court abused its

Appellate Case: 03-4072 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/13/2004 Entry ID: 1820999 
-2-

discretion by permitting two police detectives to testify as experts on drug trafficking.

For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the district court.

I

The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department received information from an

informant that a person named “Walt” had been at the Save-A-Lot store to discuss a

narcotics sale. The informant gave the police a description of the suspect and a

description of the suspect’s car. As two police detectives, Detective Carl Dulay and

Detective Michael Scego, approached the location given by the informant they saw

a man exiting a restaurant who met the description given by the informant. The man

turned out to be Walter Robertson. Robertson stated he did not want any problems

and informed the detectives he had a gun in his pocket. The detectives seized the gun

and approximately thirteen grams of crack cocaine. 

At trial, over the objection of Robertson, the district court permitted the expert

testimony of Detective Dulay and Detective Scego. The detectives testified the

amount of crack cocaine possessed by Robertson was a distribution amount. They

further testified dealers selling this amount of crack cocaine typically carry a gun to

protect themselves from being robbed by other drug dealers. This testimonial

evidence helped convict Robertson of possession with intent to distribute crack

cocaine and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime.

II

The business of drug trafficking and the modus operandi of drug dealers are

matters unfamiliar to jurors. United States v. Molina, 172 F.3d 1048, 1056 (8th Cir.

1999). As such, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits a district court

to allow the testimony of a witness whose knowledge, skill, training, experience or

education will assist a trier of fact in understanding the business of drug trafficking.

Appellate Case: 03-4072 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/13/2004 Entry ID: 1820999 
2

Although the district court did not hold a hearing pursuant to Daubert v.

Merrell Down Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the district court is not

always required to hold such a hearing prior to qualifying an expert under Rule 702

of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Solorio-Tafolla, 324 F.3d at 965-66.

-3-

See Fed. R. Evid. 702; see also United States v. Solorio-Tafolla, 324 F.3d 964, 965

(8th Cir. 2003) (allowing expert testimony on drug quantities obtained for personal

use); United States v. Newton, 31 F.3d 611, 613 (8th Cir. 1994) (permitting expert

testimony on the use of firearms by drug dealers). When deciding whether to admit

expert testimony under Rule 702 the district court plays a gatekeeping role allowing

in testimony only if it is both relevant and reliable.2

 United States v. Vesey, 338 F.3d

913, 916 (8th Cir. 2003). The district court enjoys broad discretion in its

determination of relevancy and reliability. Id. Therefore, we will reverse the district

court’s decision to admit the detectives’ expert testimony only upon the showing of

an abuse of discretion. Molina, 172 F.3d at 1056.

Robertson asserts the detectives’ lack of expertise in the area of drug

trafficking renders their testimony inherently unreliable. We disagree with

Robertson’s characterization of the detectives’ qualifications. In fact, the record

shows both detectives possess the necessary knowledge, skill, training, experience

and education to qualify as experts in drug trafficking. Detective Dulay is a ten-year

veteran of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department. He attended a two-week

training course sponsored by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). Detective Dulay

gathers intelligence on the local narcotics trade as part of his daily routine. To gather

this intelligence, Dulay interviews addicts, defendants and informants. Detective

Dulay has arrested over fifty individuals for state and federal drug and firearm

offenses over a two-year period and he has testified in court over fifty times regarding

the seizure of controlled substances. Based upon these qualifications, we find the

district court properly performed its gatekeeping role and did not abuse its discretion

by permitting Detective Dulay to testify as an expert in drug trafficking.

Appellate Case: 03-4072 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/13/2004 Entry ID: 1820999 
-4-

Similarly, Detective Scego is a thirteen-year veteran of the St. Louis

Metropolitan Police Department. He also attended a two-week training course

sponsored by the DEA. For at least the last three years, Detective Scego’s primary

focus has been in the area of narcotics investigation. He makes narcotics related

arrests and conducts narcotics related interviews on a daily basis. Based upon these

qualifications, we find the district court properly performed its gatekeeping role and

did not abuse its discretion by permitting Detective Scego to testify as an expert in

drug trafficking.

III

After reviewing the testimony and qualifications of the detectives, we conclude

the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting their reliable and relevant

expert testimony. Therefore, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-4072 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/13/2004 Entry ID: 1820999