Opinion ID: 790797
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Agent Klemick's Opinion Testimony

Text: 30 Preliminary to presenting the above-described evidence for jury review, 4 the government elicited background and opinion testimony from Agent Klemick, some of which is challenged on this appeal. Without objection, Klemick, as one of two case agents, testified briefly to certain techniques used by law enforcement officials in the investigation of the charged conspiracy, specifically, wiretaps, surveillance, cooperator debriefings, and review of law enforcement databases. See Trial Tr. at 92. The prosecution then asked Klemick if, based on your investigation, he could identify certain persons. Id. at 95. Beginning with Walmer DeArmas, Klemick testified, without objection, that [w]e identified [him] as one of Gabriel Herrera's sources of supply for cocaine. Id. In response to a similar inquiry regarding Francisco Valentin, Klemick stated that [h]e was a partner of Walmer DeArmas and of Yuri Garcia in the drug conspiracy. Id. at 96. A defense objection to the characterization was sustained, and the response stricken from the record. Id. When the question was rephrased, however, and a response given that omitted specific reference to Garcia, the court overruled a defense objection to the agent offering conclusory testimony: 31 Q: Based on your investigation, who or what role was played by Francisco Valentin? 32 A: Francisco Valentin was basically a partner with Walmer DeArmas who supplied cocaine to DeArmas. 33 Q: And how were you able to determine this? 34 A: Through intercepted — 35 [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, again, I would just object to the conclusion. I mean, that's— 36 [PROSECUTOR]: Your Honor, the question is phrased in terms of based on their investigative work. It is the conclusion that the agent reached in the course of his investigation. 37 THE COURT: Overruled. 38 Q: How were you able to determine this? 39 A: Through intercepted phone conversations and research of law enforcement database and surveillance. 40 Id. at 96-97. 41 The prosecution then proceeded to ask Klemick to testify specifically as to Garcia's role, prompting an objection, a rephrasing of the question by the court, and the response challenged on this appeal: 42 Q: In the course of your investigation, were you able to determine what role, if any, Yuri Garcia played in the organization? 43 A: Yes. 44 Q: And what role did he play based on your investigation? 45 [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection, your Honor, as to role. If the question is: What did he see? What did he do? That's one thing, but when it talks about role, it opens up a whole other— 46 THE COURT: As far as you could determine, what did he do? 47 Q: That was the question. 48 A: As far as our investigation determined, he was a partner with Francisco Valentin in receiving cocaine from Walmer DeArmas and he also helped to test the cocaine to make sure that it was a quality product. 49 Id. at 97-98 (emphasis added). 50 Klemick subsequently testified, without objection, to a further conclusion reached by him in the course of the conspiracy investigation, specifically, the identity of a person referred to by Valentin in an intercepted call as Bonitillo. Klemick stated that, based on intercepted phone calls, through surveillance and through interviews of cooperating witnesses, he was able to identify Bonitillo as [t]he defendant, Yuri Garcia. Id. at 103. When asked if [b]ased on your participation in the investigation, he had an understanding of the role of Alejandro Tejada, Klemick testified, again without objection, that Tejada transported drugs. Id. at 106.