Opinion ID: 196165
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Testimony of Agent Shedd.

Text: 106 In the late 1980s, the DEA set up a network of sham corporations ostensibly to provide a money laundering service to underworld elements. DEA Special Agent James Shedd participated in this reverse sting operation (dubbed Operation Pisces). Duenas dealt with the Pisces network in 1987 and 1988. At trial, a prosecutor suggested that Shedd would testify as follows: Mr. Duenas told him that ninety-nine percent of the money that he was turning over to the undercover agent was, in fact, drug money. On the basis of this representation, the lower court denied a motion in limine by which the defense sought to exclude Shedd's testimony regarding Duenas' statements. Shedd told the jury about thirty-seven transactions in which Duenas supplied cash that the DEA undercover operation laundered for him. Shedd also described several conversations with Duenas in which Duenas reportedly said that he laundered money for Colombian drug traffickers and that ninety-nine percent of the money that money-launderers deal in Bogota comes from narcotics proceeds. 107 During cross-examination, appellant's counsel challenged Shedd about this statement. Shedd and Duenas conversed in Spanish, and some of their conversations had been recorded. Defense counsel called Shedd's attention to one such conversation. The translation indicated that Duenas made the contested comment during a discussion in which he explained that, although it was against the law, foreign currency routinely circulated in Colombia. He apparently added: Logically, the [foreign] currency that circulates the most over there ... is the dollar ... which ninety-nine percent of it comes from drug dealing. Shedd responded that his direct testimony had been premised not on a single discussion, but on an overall impression gained from a lengthy conversation with Duenas. 22 Appellant then moved to strike Shedd's testimony. Judge Torres denied the motion. 108 Appellant maintains that the district court made no fewer than four errors in connection with this testimony. First, appellant posits that Duenas' statements were barred by the hearsay rule. This claim fails. The court was warranted in finding that these were coconspirator declarations and, thus, admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). See, e.g., Sepulveda, 15 F.3d at 1180; Ortiz, 966 F.2d at 714-15. 109 Appellant's second contention is that Duenas' statement, in its true form, was irrelevant because it was nothing more than a gross generalization about the Colombian economy. We disagree. Though courts are sometimes cautious about admitting abstract data as proof of what actually happened in an individual case, a percentage like ninety-nine percent is quite powerful, and far surpasses the usual test that evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed.R.Evid. 401. Trial courts are afforded wide discretion in determining whether evidence clears this low threshold, see United States v. Tierney, 760 F.2d 382, 387 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843, 106 S.Ct. 131, 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985), and we will disturb an exercise of that discretion only if manifest abuse appears, see Sepulveda, 15 F.3d at 1194; United States v. Griffin, 818 F.2d 97, 101 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 844, 108 S.Ct. 137, 98 L.Ed.2d 94 (1987). 110 Under this deferential standard, the district court acted within its lawful powers in deeming Duenas' statements relevant to the issue of whether the money appellant laundered was in fact derived from narcotics trafficking. Duenas' remark, even in the diluted form that was heralded on cross-examination, has at least some probative value in ascertaining whether the drug trade was the source of the funds that appellant washed, much as the fact that a lake is contaminated has some probative value in ascertaining whether a stream that feeds the lake is contaminated. 111 Appellant's third sally alleges error in Shedd's explanation that his initial testimony about Duenas' statement was based on an overall impression from several hours of conversation. Although a witness is generally not permitted to testify about his subjective interpretations of what has been said by another person, he may do so if his opinion is rationally based on his perception and is helpful either to an understanding of his testimony or to the determination of a fact in issue. See United States v. Cox, 633 F.2d 871, 875 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 844, 102 S.Ct. 159, 70 L.Ed.2d 130 (1981). In this case, we conclude that the district court acted lawfully in leaving the testimony intact. 112 Shedd tendered his explanation of Duenas' statement in direct response to a question by appellant's counsel on cross-examination. The answer was not followed by a timely objection or motion to strike. While appellant challenged Shedd's qualifications to offer an opinion about Duenas' state of mind in a subsequent motion to strike, this was too late. See United States v. Moore, 923 F.2d 910, 915 (1st Cir.1991) (holding that Evidence Rule 103 requires that objections be made at the time evidence is offered); United States v. Parodi, 703 F.2d 768, 783 (4th Cir.1983) (same). The proper time to have registered an objection to Shedd's explanation was immediately after it was uttered. Accordingly, any objection to the explanation has been waived. And, moreover, even if the court erred in permitting the answer to stand, it looms as harmless beyond all doubt in the context of a very efficacious cross-examination. 113 Appellant's final contention is that the prosecution knowingly offered Shedd's testimony despite having a transcript that refuted it, and, to make a bad situation worse, deliberately withheld the transcript from the defense. Having carefully examined the record, we find no valid reason to conclude that the prosecution intentionally mischaracterized Shedd's proposed testimony during the in limine hearing, and no hint of prosecutorial misconduct in the handling of the transcript. At any rate, it is perfectly clear that defense counsel obtained the unexpurgated transcript in ample time to conduct a very effective cross-examination on the following day. There was no prejudice and, hence, no reversible error. See Devin, 918 F.2d at 290. 114