Opinion ID: 2827454
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: case agent testimony

Text: Kilpatrick and Ferguson challenge the lay-opinion testimony of two agents— Environmental Protection Agency Special Agent Carol Paszkiewicz and FBI Special Agent Robert Beeckman. The government never sought to qualify these agents as experts. In aggregate, they testified 23 times throughout the trial. Because the trial portended to be protracted, the government procured permission from the court to present its case in “chapters.” The government used the case agents to introduce volumes of evidence at the beginning of each “chapter.” The agents also interpreted the “shorthand” lingo the defendants used in their text messages, discussed some of the inner workings of the Detroit government, and explained aspects of the sewer-department contracts. Before trial, Kilpatrick and Ferguson objected to the government’s plan to use the case agents so extensively. The district court overruled these pre-trial objections, and later reaffirmed its decision in its post-trial order denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial: Nos. 13-2500/14-1120 United States v. Kilpatrick, et al. Page 9 As revealed pretrial and at trial, during the government’s investigation of Defendants’ criminal conduct it had gathered about 300,000 text messages, as well as hundreds of thousands of records from the City of Detroit, municipal contractors, accountants, and financial institutions. It argued that many of these text messages were highly relevant to the jury’s understanding of the facts in this criminal case but were so cryptic they often could only be understood from the context of other messages, records, and events that took place at the same time. This Court agreed. Because the text messages and recorded conversations between Defendants were communicated in an informal short-hand with little or no explanatory detail, the Court agreed that the jury would not understand these communications without some context and background that helps explain, or provides a lay opinion, as to the meaning of the abbreviations, shorthand, or nicknames used in Defendants’ communications to reference individuals, companies, or business transactions. The foundation for those explanations or lay opinion was the agents’ multi-year investigation and review of tens of thousands of text messages, thousands of wiretap recordings, and hundreds of records and pieces of information. It was not the agents’ specialized knowledge gained from their law enforcement training, education, and experience in public corruption cases generally. Contrary to Defendants’ arguments here, Agents Paszkiewicz and Beeckman did not offer sweeping conclusions or generalizations that intruded on the jury’s responsibility to determine the key facts at issue and to determine whether the government had established, beyond a reasonable doubt, the elements of each charged offense. They did not offer legal conclusions that directly implicated the jury’s fact-finding and decision-making functions. Rather, the case agents’ lay opinion testimony was properly limited after the required foundation was established. Kilpatrick and Ferguson challenge the admission of dozens of statements by the case agents. Essentially, they argue their case is like United States v. Freeman, 730 F.3d 590, 595-96 (6th Cir. 2013) (vacating a conviction for evidentiary errors concerning case agent testimony). For the reasons that follow, we find this case readily distinguishable from Freeman and that any evidentiary errors did not prejudice the defendants.
We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. A court abuses its discretion when it “relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact, improperly applies the law, or employs an erroneous legal standard,” or when we are “firmly convinced” that the trial court “committed a clear error of judgment.” United States v. Miner, 774 F.3d 336, 348 (6th Cir. 2014) (internal citations omitted). When a defendant fails to object at trial, we review an evidentiary ruling for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). Nos. 13-2500/14-1120 United States v. Kilpatrick, et al. Page 10 During trial, defense counsel lodged objections to much of the case agents’ testimony. The government asks us to parse out the challenged testimony that was not subject to objection at trial, and apply plain error review. But the defendants maintained a standing objection throughout the trial to virtually all of the agents’ testimony. We decline to review the testimony under the deferential plain error standard. Even if the district court abused its discretion, this does not automatically result in a new trial. Evidentiary errors remain subject to harmless error review. Under the “harmless error” rule, Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a), any “error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.” Non-constitutional errors are subject to Rule 52(a) harmless error analysis: the government must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the error did not materially affect the verdict. See Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764-65 (1946) (adopting this “substantially swayed” test for non-constitutional errors); Cummins v. BIC USA, Inc., 727 F.3d 506, 510 (6th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 935 (2014); see also generally 2 Handbook of Fed. Evid. § 103:1 (7th ed.); 7 Crim. Proc. § 27.6(a)-(e) (3d ed.). In contrast, when an error of constitutional magnitude occurs, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict. Miner, 774 F.3d at 342, 350 (differentiating the harmless error standard of review for a constitutional error—an erroneous jury instruction—from a nonconstitutional evidentiary error).2 In non-constitutional evidentiary-error cases like this one, when the record is “so evenly balanced that a conscientious judge is in grave doubt as to the harmlessness of an error,” the judgment must be reversed. O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 437-38 (1995). The scale, if equal, tips in favor of the defendant. Ruelas v. Wolfenbarger, 580 F.3d 403, 413 (6th Cir. 2009). 2 In United States v. Baldwin, a case that involved improper character evidence (a non-constitutional error), we mistakenly stated, “An error is harmless ‘when it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’” 418 F.3d 575, 582 (6th Cir. 2005) (emphasis added) (quoting Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 17-18 (2003)). But we left out the crucial word “constitutional.” The Supreme Court in Esparza actually said, “A constitutional error is harmless when it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Esparza, 540 U.S. at 17-18 (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (2003)) (emphasis added, internal quotation marks omitted). Several opinions have followed Baldwin on this point. See, e.g., Freeman, 730 F.3d at 595; United States v. Lopez-Medina, 461 F.3d 724, 741 (6th Cir. 2006). Nos. 13-2500/14-1120 United States v. Kilpatrick, et al. Page 11
Kilpatrick and Ferguson argue that the case agents violated the lay opinion testimony rule, Federal Rule of Evidence 701, by summarizing evidence and interpreting text messages, phone calls, and other documents. Courts often qualify law enforcement officers as expert witnesses under Rule 702 to interpret intercepted conversations that use “slang, street language, and the jargon of the illegal drug trade.” United States v. Peoples, 250 F.3d 630, 641 (8th Cir. 2001). In contrast, when an officer is not qualified as an expert, the officer’s lay opinion is admissible “only when the law enforcement officer is a participant in the conversation, has personal knowledge of the facts being related in the conversation, or observed the conversations as they occurred.” Id. This rule is derived from Rule 701, which states: If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. The party offering testimony under Rule 701 must establish that all three requirements are satisfied. Freeman, 730 F.3d at 595-96. The function of lay opinion testimony is to “describ[e] something that the jurors could not otherwise experience for themselves by drawing upon the witness’s sensory and experiential observations that were made as a first-hand witness to a particular event.” Id. at 595 (quoting United States v. Jayyousi, 657 F.3d 1085, 1120 (11th Cir. 2011) (Barkett, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)); see also United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201, 211 (2d Cir. 2005) (describing lay opinion testimony as an acceptable shorthand for the rendition of facts the witness personally perceived). Several recent cases have explored the boundaries of lay opinion testimony by law enforcement officers who interpret intercepted communications for the jury. On one hand, “an investigator who has accumulated months or even years of experience with the events, places, and individuals involved in an investigation necessarily draws on that knowledge when testifying; indeed, it is those out-of-court experiences that make the witness’s testimony helpful Nos. 13-2500/14-1120 United States v. Kilpatrick, et al. Page 12 to the jury.” United States v. Gadson, 763 F.3d 1189, 1209 (9th Cir. 2014). On the other hand, testimony of this type also poses dangers. In Freeman, we addressed the extent to which agents may give lay opinion testimony that interprets intercepted conversations when the agents base their interpretations on the collective knowledge that the agency obtained through the course of the investigation. We explored the “risk” that when an agent “provides interpretations of recorded conversations based on his knowledge of the entire investigation,” the agent could impermissibly testify “based upon information not before the jury, including hearsay,” and that the jury might think the agent is privy to important knowledge about the case that the jury lacks. Freeman, 730 F.3d at 596 (quoting United States v. Hampton, 718 F.3d 978, 983 (D.C. Cir. 2013)). The risks are that the agent (1) could “effectively smuggle in inadmissible evidence,” (2) may draw the kind of inferences that counsel may draw in closing argument, but with “the imprimatur of testifying as a law enforcement officer,” (3) could “usurp the jury’s function,” or (4) may be “doing nothing more than speculating.” Id. (quoting United States v. Albertelli, 687 F.3d 439, 447 (1st Cir. 2012)). Accordingly, a trial court must ensure that the testimony hews to Rule 701’s limitations. In Freeman, the testifying agent “repeatedly substantiated his responses and inferences with generic information and references to the investigation as a whole.” Id. This ran afoul of Rule 701(a) because the agent “never specified personal experiences that led him to obtain his information but, instead, repeatedly relied on the general knowledge of the FBI and the investigation as a whole.” These vague references to the “investigation as a whole” left the jury “in the dark” regarding the sources of the agent’s information. Id. The agent never testified that he was present for any surveillance, or even that he observed any activity relevant to interpreting the wiretapped phone calls. Id. at 597. Because the agent never specified his sources or cited his personal experiences, we were left to infer that “he was expressing an opinion informed by all the evidence gleaned by various agents in the course of the investigation and not limiting himself to his own personal perceptions.” Id. at 596 (quoting Garcia, 413 F.3d at 213); see also United States v. Miller, 738 F.3d 361, 373 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (finding plain error when the agents interpreted phone conversations without specifying the “bases (events, other calls, seizures of contraband, etc.) upon which their opinions rested—other than broad claims about knowledge Nos. 13-2500/14-1120 United States v. Kilpatrick, et al. Page 13 they had gained from the investigation”). The testimony in Freeman was so egregious that the government conceded at oral argument that the agent “lacked the first-hand knowledge required to lay a sufficient foundation for his testimony under Rule 701(a).” 730 F.3d at 597. In addition to the agent’s failure to limit his testimony to his own “sensory and experiential observations” under Rule 701(a), id. at 595, the testimony in Freeman also ran afoul of Rule 701(b)’s helpfulness requirement. It is not “helpful” when a witness, lay or expert, forms conclusions for a jury that the jurors are competent to reach on their own. Id. at 597. To “merely tell the jury what result to reach” violates the rule. Id. The agent in Freeman “effectively spoon-fed his interpretations of the phone calls and the government’s theory of the case to the jury, interpreting even ordinary English language.” Id.; see also Peoples, 250 F.3d at 640 (reversing when the officer’s lay opinion testimony constituted several hours of “a narrative gloss that consisted almost entirely of her personal opinions of what the [recorded] conversations meant”). Nor is it helpful for a lay opinion witness to speculate or to repeat previously-admitted evidence that requires no explanation. Freeman, 730 F.3d at 597 (citing United States v. Freeman, 498 F.3d 893, 905 (9th Cir. 2007)). When it comes to interpreting language from intercepted communications, an agent can be helpful when she uses her personal knowledge of the case to interpret cryptic language. Id. at 598. But a case agent testifying as a lay witness “may not explain to a jury what inferences to draw from recorded conversations involving ordinary language” because this crosses the line from evidence to argument. Id. Other boundaries also apply under Rule 701(b). Lay opinion witnesses should avoid expressing a conclusion that the defendant is guilty. Garcia, 413 F.3d at 210, 213 (noting that, while under Rule 704, a lay opinion is not inadmissible simply because “it embraces an ultimate issue,” courts should “be wary” of opinion testimony whose “sole function” is to answer the ultimate question of guilt). But see Gadson, 763 F.3d at 1213-14 (holding that the district court did not plainly err in allowing an officer who testified purely as a lay witness to state his opinion that the defendant was guilty). An agent may not, at the beginning of trial, provide a summary of evidence that has not yet been admitted. Albertelli, 687 F.3d at 449; Garcia, 413 F.3d at 210-11, 214; Fed. R. Evid. 602. The law provides a place for such summaries and conclusions—in the opening statement and closing argument. There is also a danger when opinion testimony “relies Nos. 13-2500/14-1120 United States v. Kilpatrick, et al. Page 14 on or conveys hearsay evidence, such as when an officer relies on the truth of a third party’s statement as the basis for an interpretation of a statement in an intercepted phone call.” Gadson, 763 F.3d at 1208. The third requirement, stated in Rule 701(c), is designed to “prevent a party from conflating expert and lay opinion testimony thereby conferring an aura of expertise on a witness without satisfying the reliability standard for expert testimony set forth in Rule 702 and the pretrial disclosure requirements set forth in Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.” Garcia, 413 F.3d at 215. If the opinion testimony draws on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge, then its admissibility should be assessed under Rule 702, not Rule 701. Id.
Kilpatrick and Ferguson argue that this case is like Freeman, 730 F.3d at 590. It is not. First, unlike Freeman, the agents in this case established a personal-knowledge basis for their lay opinion testimony. They did not merely cite to the collective knowledge of their respective agencies as the source of their information. Each agent testified on multiple occasions concerning his or her years-long personal involvement in the case, including interviewing dozens of witnesses, reading scores of relevant documents and thousands of text messages, and listening to recorded phone calls. This was not a case in which the agents lacked first-hand personal knowledge of key aspects of their testimony. Second, few of the challenged statements could be characterized as (1) arguing the government’s case or (2) offering interpretations of plain English language, which were issues in Freeman. In fact, a great deal of the challenged testimony does not implicate Rule 701 or Freeman at all. Some of the testimony is simply admissible background material. Agents are permitted to testify regarding how they became involved in a case, what allegations they were investigating, who the suspects were, and similar background. United States v. Goosby, 523 F.3d 632, 638 (6th Cir. 2008); United States v. Aguwa, 123 F.3d 418, 421 (6th Cir. 1997) (citing United States v. Evans, 883 F.2d 496, 501 (6th Cir. 1989)). This sort of testimony, which is designed to set the stage for the introduction of evidence, differs substantively from problematic Nos. 13-2500/14-1120 United States v. Kilpatrick, et al. Page 15 “preview testimony” that “purports to sum up (in advance of the evidence) the government’s overall case.” Albertelli, 687 F.3d at 449. To provide an example, the government asked Agent Paszkiewicz on October 24, 2012, to describe her role in the investigation: A. I was one of the principal agents investigating allegations of extortion by members of the Kilpatrick administration in the awarding of Detroit Water and Sewerage Department contracts. Q. What do you mean by that, what were you exactly investigating in that regard? A. Allegations that contractors to the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department were either forced to have certain partnerships in contracts, were made to make what we call no-show payments on contracts and bid rigging and contract steering by various members of either [the] Detroit Water and Sewerage Department or the mayoral administration. Q. And when you say “forced,” what do you mean? A. Well, that they were, that these contractors, whether or not they had a fear or belief that if they didn’t do the things I mentioned, specifically the forced partnerships or the making of the no-show payments . . . . that they would have negative repercussions . . . . Defense counsel objected that the agent was supplying legal definitions and arguing the government’s case. But the court explained: I think this is a complicated case that has a lot of different charges, that it will be very difficult for the jury to recall from the original opening statements, which are already like six or eight weeks ago, and if she’s explaining what her investigation encompassed, that’s entirely proper. Another example occurred the following day, when the same agent testified: Q. Now, did you investigate whether African American contractors, as part of your case, suffered financial consequences as a result of alleged efforts by the administration to give contracts to Bobby Ferguson? A. Yes. Q. And that included lost city contracts? A. Yes. Q. Contracts that were canceled that were awarded to African American contractors? A. That were initially awarded, yes. Nos. 13-2500/14-1120 United States v. Kilpatrick, et al. Page 16 Q. And payment by African American contractors to Mr. Ferguson for work that he didn’t do? A. Yes. Q. And instances in which African American contractors were forced to enter into agreements and contracts with Mr. Ferguson in the city contracts? A. Yes. The agent simply explained what allegations she investigated. She did not offer conclusions or impermissibly argue the government’s case. Explaining the allegations underlying an investigation does not implicate Rule 701 or Freeman. It is also permissible for an agent who has reviewed the evidence to testify concerning what the evidence does not contain. For example, Kilpatrick and Ferguson objected when the government asked Agent Paszkiewicz whether Kilpatrick sent text messages to any contractor besides Ferguson, and she answered “no.” But a witness may testify that the dog didn’t bark. A witness who has examined the records may testify that no record “of a specific tenor is there contained.” United States v. Scales, 594 F.2d 558, 562 (6th Cir. 1979) (quoting 4 Wigmore, Evidence § 1230 (Chadbourn rev. 1972)); see also McCormick on Evidence § 234 (2013). Testifying to the absence of evidence also does not implicate Rule 701 or Freeman. Another consideration is that, especially in a complicated trial, a witness may make short “framing” references to previously-admitted evidence. Contrary to the defendants’ argument, it was not error for the government to ask the case agents whether they recalled certain details of prior witnesses’ testimony. These short framing questions tied the evidence together in a manner that was helpful to the jury. See United States v. Smith, 601 F.3d 530, 540 (6th Cir. 2010) (permitting summary-reference testimony in complex cases where the volume of evidence is “plausibly confusing to the jury”). The Rules also allow a witness to summarize voluminous writings or recordings. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006, a party may “use a summary . . . to prove the content of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs that cannot be conveniently examined in court,” provided that the other party has been given an opportunity to examine the entire record. “[T]he point of Rule 1006 is to avoid introducing all the documents.” United States v. Faulkenberry, 614 F.3d 573, 588-89 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Hemphill, 514 F.3d 1350, 1359 Nos. 13-2500/14-1120 United States v. Kilpatrick, et al. Page 17 (D.C. Cir. 2008)). Because both parties possess the entire collection of recordings or writings, Rule 1006 witnesses can be cross-examined about the accuracy of their summaries. In this case, when the agents explained their interpretations of ambiguous statements and the workings of the Detroit government, they sometimes relied on groups of “surrounding text messages” or their review of documents and interviews of witnesses as the basis for their interpretations and identifications. Only 151 out of about 370,000 subpoenaed text messages were shown to the jury. But, because the defendants had access to all the evidence cited by the agents, they were free to challenge the accuracy of any summary testimony through crossexamination. The defendants challenge an instance in which an agent was reading a document and made an error that was later corrected. But agents are free to read aloud from admitted documents, even if there are minor discrepancies between the written and spoken texts. United States v. Tragas, 727 F.3d 610, 614 (6th Cir. 2013). Several of the challenged statements in this case concern “identifications.” The agents supplied names for nicknames, identified people’s jobs or relationships, and explained, for example, which city contract was being discussed in which text message. As the First Circuit explained in Albertelli, defendants who challenge a lay witness’s identification testimony on appeal should state some claim that the identification was faulty or debatable, and show how the answer was prejudicial. 687 F.3d at 449. One illustrative example of an identification derived from summary evidence occurred when the government tried to establish a foundation for Agent Beeckman’s explanation that the “boss” to whom city employee Vincent Anwunah referred in his text messages was Ferguson. Agent Beeckman said the identification was based on his review of “other text messages” between Anwunah and Ferguson. To provide another example, on October 24, Agent Paszkiewicz was asked, over a standing objection, to interpret a message from Ferguson to Kilpatrick. It said, “You’re welcome, boss. Just left Victor. The date has been changed . . . to my benefit but we still have problem on the big one. He thinks he is slick, man, with this [sic] white folks.” The agent Nos. 13-2500/14-1120 United States v. Kilpatrick, et al. Page 18 testified that the three lowest bidders on the project in question were “majority-owned” and that, based on her “review of the surrounding text messages,” “the big one” was city contract number CM-2012. This was essentially identification testimony. And we believe it was admissible under Rule 701. Here, based on her investigation, Agent Paszkiewicz gained first-hand knowledge of which contractors were majority- or minority-owned. Her first-hand examination of the text messages enabled her to opine that “the big one” was a particular contract. These interpretations were helpful to the jury and not based on specialized knowledge. The difficulty in this example is that (unlike many of the challenged identifications), it is not clear whether other evidence that was submitted to the jury would have confirmed the identifications. If this were Rule 1006 summary evidence, this would not be a problem. Rule 1006 does not require that the summarized records be submitted to the jury. But some Rule 701 cases have found error when an agent references evidence (e.g., “surrounding text messages”) that is not before the jury. See, e.g., Hampton, 718 F.3d at 983 (stating that when an agent based his interpretation on “all of the calls,” but only 100 of 20,000 calls were admitted into evidence, it raised the “specter” that the verdict could be influenced by information outside the evidence). Nevertheless, Kilpatrick and Ferguson do not contest the accuracy of these identifications or explain how they were otherwise prejudicial. See Albertelli, 687 F.3d at 449. If the defense had reason to believe that the bidders were minority owned, or that “the big one” was something other than CM-2012, they could have cross-examined the agent. See United States v. Etienne, 772 F.3d 907, 920 (1st Cir. 2014) (finding that the opportunity to cross-examine an agent concerning his voice identifications was adequate protection for the defendant’s “substantial rights”). Given that Kilpatrick and Ferguson do not argue that these identifications (of someone’s name, family relationship, job title, or job function, for example) were inaccurate, debatable, or prejudicial, we have no basis for finding harmful error. Furthermore, Kilpatrick and Ferguson waived their challenge to many of these identifications. The parties agreed before trial that the agents could, relying on surrounding text messages, clarify terms such as nicknames, abbreviates, acronyms, and so on. Nos. 13-2500/14-1120 United States v. Kilpatrick, et al. Page 19 Finally, Kilpatrick and Ferguson allege that the case agents’ testimony occasionally strayed into expert testimony. When an agent gives opinions that rely on the agent’s specialized training as a law enforcement officer, that testimony is expert testimony, and the agent must be qualified under Rule 702. See Garcia, 413 F.3d at 215-17. However, when an agent relies on his or her personal knowledge of a particular investigation, the agent’s opinion may be lay opinion testimony under Rule 701. See Albertelli, 687 F.3d at 446-48; United States v. Rollins, 544 F.3d 820, 830-33 (7th Cir. 2008). For instance, Agent Beeckman testified that the standard oversight fee for Detroit sewer department contracts was five percent. The defendants objected, and the court held a sidebar. At the sidebar, the government pointed out that the discovery materials contained several “boilerplate” contracts, each of which contained this five percent fee. Kilpatrick and Ferguson do not repudiate this observation. It was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to conclude that mentioning the five percent standard fee was not expert testimony because a layperson could glean this information by reviewing the contracts. See Garcia, 413 F.3d at 215 (“[A] lay opinion must be the product of reasoning processes familiar to the average person in everyday life.”). Again, Kilpatrick and Ferguson do not challenge the accuracy of the statement. Even assuming that the reference to the oversight fee was not proper under Rule 701 or 1006 (to which the government now cites), any error would be harmless. Another such incident occurred when Agent Beeckman referred to a casino owner and said that “the law is that you can’t make any political contributions if you have a casino vendor license.” At another point, Agent Beeckman explained that the Kilpatrick Civic Fund was a “501(c)(4), public welfare organization, tax-exempt nonprofit organization” authorized by the IRS to solicit donations for public welfare purposes. Agent Beeckman further explained that a § 501(c)(4) entity could not legally contribute to a political campaign. Although these references to laws and regulations had the ring of expert testimony or legal argument, one could also conclude that a layperson who studied the discovery materials (which included, for example, the Kilpatrick Civic Fund’s articles of incorporation, a Detroit government organizational chart, dozens of contracts, thousands of text messages, and numerous witness interviews) would have learned the basic contours of what it means to be a § 501(c)(4) Nos. 13-2500/14-1120 United States v. Kilpatrick, et al. Page 20 corporation and the campaign contribution limitations of certain organizations. See, e.g., Fed. R. Evid. 701 Advisory Committee Notes to 2000 Amendments (“[T]he distinction between lay and expert witness testimony is that lay testimony ‘results from a process of reasoning familiar in everyday life,’ while expert testimony ‘results from a process of reasoning which can be mastered only by specialists in the field.’” (quoting State v. Brown, 836 S.W.2d 530, 549 (Tenn. 1992))). Even if this testimony crossed the line into expert testimony, Kilpatrick and Ferguson have not alleged the statements were inaccurate or prejudicial. The same can be said of other challenged testimony, which included an agent’s description of the city’s process for approving a contract, an agent’s description of Kilpatrick’s role as “special administrator” for the sewer department, and an explanation of a city executive order giving preference to Detroit-based businesses. At argument, we asked Ferguson’s attorney to identify the most egregious errors in admitting the case agents’ testimony. Ferguson’s counsel alleged several errors, but did not argue they contained inaccuracies or explain how they harmed her client. Nor did counsel identify any inadmissible evidence smuggled in through the agents’ opinion testimony. We conclude that error, if any, in admitting the case agents’ testimony was harmless.