Opinion ID: 50965
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Agent Durst’s testimony

Text: Defendant Johnson contends that the district court erred in permitting Agent Durst to testify that it is common for drug dealers to hide their identities by using cell phones in other persons’ names, and to explain the meaning of the recorded conversation between Johnson and Parker that was played for the jury.3 We need not determine whether the district court erred in allowing Agent Durst’s testimony, because any error was harmless. See United States v. Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306, 1315 (11th Cir. 2004). First, Parker himself testified that the term “11-5” referred to “the money that [Parker] needed to bring back” to Johnson, and that the term “half” referred to “the half kilogram” of cocaine for which the money was owed. Thus, Agent Durst’s testimony was duplicative of Parker’s as to the meaning of the recorded conversation between Parker and Johnson. Moreover, as to the cell phone, Johnson’s ex-girlfriend herself testified that 2 Johnson does not challenge his sentence based on drug quantity because, as he acknowledges, “the district court’s drug quantity determination [of between 400 and 500 grams of cocaine] ultimately had no affect [sic] on the sentence imposed” due to the district court’s determination that Johnson qualified as a career offender. 3 We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Pendas-Martinez, 845 F.2d 938, 941 (11th Cir. 1988). 7 she had obtained the cell phone for Johnson in her name. Additionally, Parker testified that he and Johnson arranged multiple cocaine transactions, including the approximately half-kilogram transaction that led to Parker’s and Johnson’s arrests. Cell phone records then corroborated Parker’s testimony by establishing a pattern of telephone calls between Parker and Johnson that was consistent with the drug delivery dates. Accordingly, even absent Agent Durst’s challenged testimony, there was sufficient evidence to support Johnson’s conviction, and any error in admitting Durst’s challenged testimony was did not affect the verdict and was thus harmless. Hornaday, 392 F.3d at 1316-17.