Opinion ID: 784281
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Expert Testimony Relating to Negotiation Calls

Text: 16 Rangel argues that a DEA agent witness invaded the province of the jury and offered improper expert testimony by testifying that certain phone calls were for the purposes of negotiation. The transcript of the testimony belies this argument. 17 Rangel says the DEA agent witness offered an opinion as to the content and purpose of the calls represented on the chart, an opinion not founded on the facts represented by the exhibit itself but, apparently, on either an expert opinion held by the agent himself or his reliance upon the word of cooperating witness Garcia, the only witness to claim actual knowledge of the content and purpose of the communications. 18 (Appellant's Br. at 16.) The essence of the argument is that no one, except the parties to the call, actually know what was said between Rangel and Garcia during their telephone conversations. If this is so, Rangel argues that the agent witness should not be allowed to speculate as to the meaning or content of the call. The agent did no such thing. A single sentence from the transcript of the agent's testimony shows this. [A]ll of the other transactions were preceded by a series of negotiations, phone calls between the confidential source, Jorge, and Mr. Garcia.  (Tr. Vol. II at 160) (emphasis added). The testimony does not delve into the content of phone calls between Garcia and Rangel. The negotiation phone calls between Garcia and Jorge were made pursuant to the requests of the testifying agent. Furthermore, these calls were recorded and their transcripts were admitted into evidence. The testimony was not improper. 19 For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM.