Opinion ID: 6104768
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inspector Dowd's Testimony

Text: Finally, Reyes objected to the admission of Postal Inspector Stephen Dowd's lay testimony that the labels on the parcels addressed to Reyes and others appeared to have common - 45 - authorship based on the similarity in handwriting. The following is an example of the Government and Inspector Dowd's exchanges on this issue: Q. And do you have an opinion with respect to the handwriting on both [labels]? A. Yes. Q. And what is that opinion? A. I believe the same person wrote these labels. Q. And, again, what's the basis for that? A. By looking at the different letters, and they appear to be exactly duplicates on both. As Inspector Dowd gave his testimony, the various labels under discussion were shown side-by-side on a split-screen for the jury to view. On appeal, Reyes argues that Inspector Dowd's lay testimony was not helpful to the jury under Rule 701 where [t]he jurors not only could view and compare the handwriting on the various labels for themselves, but they did so. By contrast, the Government maintains that Inspector Dowd's testimony was helpful. While we tend to agree with the Government that Reyes's argument misapprehends the scope of Fed. R. Evid. 701,17 in any 17Our standard for excluding lay opinion testimony as unhelpful under Rule 701 requires that the witness [be] no better suited than the jury to make the judgment at issue. United States v. Kornegay, 410 F.3d 89, 95 (1st Cir. 2005) (emphasis added) (quoting Jackman, 48 F.3d at 4-5). We find it difficult to say that Inspector Dowd was no better suited than the jury to assess the labels where Inspector Dowd had relevant background from the - 46 - case, even if the district court did err in admitting Inspector Dowd's testimony, such error would again be harmless as the testimony did not concern the central question of Reyes's knowledge. The Government used Inspector Dowd's handwriting testimony to help establish that a drug conspiracy existed; but Reyes did not dispute the existence of a conspiracy. Reyes only disputed that he was a knowing participant in said conspiracy. For its part, the Government never attempted to argue that the similar handwriting on the parcel labels was probative of Reyes's knowledge or even that Reyes would have noticed that the handwriting was the same. Indeed, defense counsel itself argued in opening statement that Inspector Dowd w[ould not] be able to [explain] why a normal, non-law enforcement person would consider [the parcels] suspicious. Thus, because Inspector Dowd's testimony addressed an uncontested issue, and because the Government never invoked Inspector Dowd's testimony to prove the central question of Reyes's knowledge, its admission, erroneous or otherwise, was harmless.