Opinion ID: 589445
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Factual basis for testimony

Text: 32 Officer LaCroix testified to the jury that [i]t is my opinion that Mr. Bantula and Mr. Romero were the people in charge of this narcotics transaction. See R.T. 2/15/90, at 16. The factual basis for his opinion included the following information: First, LaCroix was told that Pelaez would meet with the cocaine suppliers in the parking lot and the surveillance thereafter showed that Pelaez met with Bantula, Romero, and Perez. Second, Bantula and Romero arrived with Perez, who later drove the load car to pick up the cocaine. Third, LaCroix believed that the people who control these transactions generally speaking have other people do the dirty work for them, such as delivering or guarding the cocaine. We find that this information provided a sufficient factual basis for admitting Officer LaCroix's testimony. Cf. United States v. Fleishman, 684 F.2d 1329, 1333, 1336 (9th Cir.) (affirming admission of expert opinion regarding defendant's role relying upon similar factual basis), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1044 (1982). 33 We are also unpersuaded by Romero's contention that Pelaez' statement could not provide an adequate factual basis for the expert opinion because it was improperly admitted against Romero. In light of our conclusion that this statement was properly admitted under Bourjaily, the jury was entitled to consider the statement as part of the factual basis for the opinion testimony regarding Romero's leadership.