Opinion ID: 2787038
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony of Jerriereneika Dorsey

Text: Donald Turner and Corey Turner both argue the district court erred by admitting Jerriereneika Dorsey’s lay-opinion testimony about the meaning of certain drug-related terms used in intercepted phone calls. “We review evidentiary rulings of a district court for abuse of discretion, giving substantial deference to the district court’s determinations, . . . [and] revers[ing] only if an error affects the substantial rights of the defendant or has more than a slight influence on the [jury’s] verdict.” United States v. Manning, 738 F.3d 937, 942 (8th Cir. 2014) (quotation and internal citations omitted) (last alteration in original). Jerriereneika Dorsey was charged as a co-conspirator in this case, but she entered a plea agreement with the government and agreed to testify. During the first part of her testimony, Jerriereneika Dorsey described her involvement in the conspiracy. In the course of doing so, she defined several drug-related terms for the jury. These terms included “soft” and “hard” (powder cocaine and crack cocaine); “8-ball” (3.5 grams); “quarter” (7 grams); “hitting the licks” (taking drugs to customers); “blow” (powder cocaine); “cookie” (a large quantity of drugs); and “stack” (one thousand dollars, as in 12 stacks = $12,000). Neither defendant objected to this testimony, and this testimony is not challenged on appeal. -15- The government then asked Jerriereneika Dorsey to listen to several intercepted telephone calls between other members of the conspiracy—including Corey Turner and Donald Turner—and to interpret some of the words and phrases used in those conversations. During this portion of her testimony, Jerriereneika Dorsey testified about what Corey Turner, Donald Turner, and others meant when they used different words and phrases. For example, she testified “clock” meant scale; “going to the store” meant going to get drugs; “2 Gs” meant 2 grams; “change” meant money; “lick” meant customer; “O” meant ounce; “hit a lick” meant to make some money; and “fifteen” or “little pack” meant a small quantity of drugs. The government did not qualify Jerriereneika Dorsey as an expert pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 before she testified about these terms. Instead, the government offered, and the district court admitted, this testimony pursuant to Rule 701 as opinion testimony by a lay witness. This is the testimony that defendants objected to at trial and that is at issue on appeal. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence, a lay witness may only provide opinion testimony 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.” Fed. R. Evid. 701. “Personal knowledge or perceptions based on experience [are] sufficient foundation for lay opinion testimony.” United States v. Faulkner, 636 F.3d 1009, 1018 (8th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). But “[l]ay opinion testimony is admissible only to help the jury or the court to understand the facts about which the witness is testifying and not to provide specialized explanations or interpretations that an untrained layman could not make if perceiving the same acts or events.” United States v. Peoples, 250 F.3d 630, 641 (8th Cir. 2001). -16- The district court in this case found that “with regard to what [Jerriereneika Dorsey] interprets the meaning to be, she’s giving a lay opinion as a co-participant or a co-conspirator, and for that reason the Court believes that’s proper testimony.” But Jerriereneika Dorsey did not testify about these telephone calls based on her “personal knowledge or perceptions.” She was not a participant in most of the conversations she interpreted during her testimony, nor was she a witness to the events described in those conversations. Instead, the government asked her to interpret words and phrases used in the drug trade, just as it might ask a law enforcement officer to do. See Peoples, 250 F.3d at 641; see also Fed. R. Evid. 701, 702. We recognize that Jerriereneika Dorsey is not a law enforcement officer. And she was a participant in the same charged conspiracy as Donald Turner, Corey Turner, and the others recorded in the calls, suggesting she may indeed have had firsthand knowledge of how members of the conspiracy used the terms and phrases she defined. But her testimony was not focused on how the members of this particular conspiracy used specific words or phrases based on her personal interactions with those individuals. To offer Jerriereneika Dorsey’s testimony based on her specialized knowledge of terminology used in drug trafficking—and not based on her own participation in, or personal knowledge of, the recorded conversations—the government needed to qualify her as what she was: an expert. See United States v. Delpit, 94 F.3d 1134, 1145 (8th Cir. 1996) (“It is well established that experts may help the jury with the meaning of jargon and codewords.”); cf. United States v. Johnson, 28 F.3d 1487, 1496 (8th Cir. 1994) (district court properly allowed unindicted co-conspirator to testify pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702 as an expert on drug trafficking based on his “extensive experience in the business of drug trafficking”). -17- To the extent that Jerriereneika Dorsey was improperly allowed to offer testimony based on her specialized knowledge, rather than based on her personal knowledge of the charged conspiracy, we do not think the error affected the jury’s verdict. Jerriereneika Dorsey had already described several terms and phrases without objection. And two other witnesses interpreted similar words and phrases for the jury without objection, including terms for quantities of drugs such as “zip,” “quarter,” “8-ball,” and “dime.” Other witnesses also defined “rock,” “clock,” “tickets,” “quick flip,” “butter,” “rack,” and “licks” for the jury. While Jerriereneika Dorsey defined additional terms, we do not believe these were sufficiently different in kind and scope to warrant a new trial. Cf. United States v. Londondio, 420 F.3d 777, 789 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding that admission of hearsay evidence that is cumulative of properly admitted evidence “is not likely to influence the jury and is therefore harmless error”).