Opinion ID: 654592
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Availability of Alternative Methods of Proof

Text: 65 Finally, the defendants-appellants argue that because an accomplice witness was available to provide similar testimony concerning the operations of organized crime families, the government was not permitted to introduce expert testimony on the subject. Rule 702, however, requires only that an expert have some specialized knowledge that will assist the trier of fact. There is no requirement that prohibits a government agent from testifying as an expert merely because an accomplice witness is also available. 66 The defendants-appellants mistakenly rely upon United States v. Long, 917 F.2d 691 (2d Cir.1990), and United States v. Castillo, 924 F.2d 1227 (2d Cir.1991), to support their contention. In Long, we held that the district court abused its discretion by admitting expert testimony regarding organized crime, but only because the crimes alleged had merely a marginal connection to organized crime. 917 F.2d at 701-02. The present case is readily distinguishable in that the charges against the defendants-appellants are intimately related to organized crime. 67 Similarly, in Castillo, this Court held that expert testimony had been erroneously admitted not because a lay witness could have provided the same testimony, but because we concluded that the jury was entirely capable of understanding the evidence before it and determining the facts in issue without [the expert's] assistance. 924 F.2d at 1233. The same cannot be said about this case.