Opinion ID: 3002292
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Agent McGarry’s “Impressions” Testimony

Text: Both defendants contend that the district court abused its discretion in allowing Agent McGarry to testify as to his “impressions” of intercepted telephone conversations as lay opinions or inferences under Federal Rule of Evidence 701.4 Agent McGarry was a key government witness, testifying for two days on direct examination. During his testimony, the prosecutor asked him for his “impression” as to the meaning of portions of several dozen recorded conversations. There were also more than a dozen instances in which the prosecutor, in effect, asked Agent McGarry for his impression of a recorded conversation without using the word “impression.” In responding, Agent McGarry gave his impressions that particular numbers referred to amounts of or prices for illegal drugs. He testified that certain words were code words for illegal drugs. And he interpreted various conversations to show that the alleged conspirators’ activities were consistent with the charged conspiracy. For example, the prosecutor asked Agent McGarry, “Your impression of what it means for them to say they are going to go have a drink at 10:30 to 11:00 4 Rule 701 provides in pertinent part: If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness’ testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. Nos. 07-2649 & 07-2930 15 o’clock?,” and Agent McGarry answered, “my impression is this call is also based on—we established surveillance at James Rollins, Senior’s residence, anticipating 10:30 or 11:00 arrival of a truck driven by John Frost.” The agent then explained that there was no meeting at the appointed time, law enforcement continued surveillance until the early morning hours, and then terminated surveillance because they did not believe the truck would be arriving after the appointed time. The government disputes whether either Rollins Sr. or Slack made a sufficient objection at trial to Agent McGarry’s “impressions” testimony. Thus, the government contends that these defendants have forfeited the issue absent a showing of plain error. We do not have to address the forfeiture argument in detail. First, the record supports the view that there was an agreement between all counsel and the court at the beginning of trial that an objection by one defendant would be considered an objection for all defendants. The government does not dispute that Rollins Jr. made a sufficient objection to Agent McGarry’s testimony to preserve the issue. Thus, Rollins Jr.’s sufficient objection would be considered effective as to both Rollins Sr. and Slack. Furthermore, whether reviewed for an abuse of discretion or under the more stringent plain error standard, we find no error in the admission of Agent McGarry’s “impressions” testimony. In allowing the “impressions” testimony, the district court explained: [T]he cases that talk about code words talk about witnesses who rely on their years of experience as a law enforcement officer. As we discussed at the 16 Nos. 07-2649 & 07-2930 side bar, the discussion here is about the words that come about that are unique to the conversations that have occurred throughout this particular alleged conspiracy. It is clear and it has been clear to this Court throughout that these guys are making this up as they go. Sometimes they make it up in each unique conversation. The officer or the agent is testifying based on his having listened to the conversations and based on his impressions, so it is clearly 701. It is not 702. . . . [T]he words that are being used, quite frankly, I have not heard these words in any other telephone calls that I have heard. . . . [T]he testimony is not coming in based on his experience as the law enforcement officer, it is based on his experience only within this conspiracy. (Trial Tr. vol. 21, 78.) Even the conspirators themselves did not always pick up right away on the meaning of these peculiarly coded conversations. During many of the conversations, one of the speakers would start talking out of the blue about “having drinks,” the height of a “singer” in a “band,” “work,” “big shoes and little shoes” and a variety of other things that would appear at first to be virtually nonsensical. For example, as Pittman explained in his testimony, during one conversation he had with Rollins Jr., Pittman initially was puzzled when Rollins Jr. started talking about running into “his little cousin.” But as the discussion continued, Pittman figured out what these confusing comments really meant: Rollins Jr. was talking about being short of cocaine. And Nos. 07-2649 & 07-2930 17 there was no pattern or predictability to the terminology. It was helpful to the jury to have explanations from the cooperating witnesses. It was also helpful to have explanations from the investigator who became intimately familiar with the unusual manner of communicating used by these conspirators. We find that the trial judge did not err in concluding that Agent McGarry’s “impressions” testimony was rationally based on his first-hand perception of the intercepted phone calls about which he testified as well as his personal, extensive experience with this particular drug investigation. The agent listened to every intercepted conversation from February through July 2005 on the phones used by Slack, the Rollinses, Pittman and Frost. Agent McGarry testified that he became “very familiar” with the voices he heard. Law enforcement surveillance of the conspirators’ activities assisted in giving meaning to various words used in the recorded conversations. The officers’ observations of the conspirators’ activities often confirmed that their understanding of a recorded conversation was accurate. Agent McGarry participated in the interviews of witnesses who were familiar with the defendants and the drug conspiracy and in obtaining proffers from members of the conspiracy. These bases for Agent McGarry’s testimony defeat Rollins Sr.’s claim the government laid an insufficient foundation for this testimony. We also find that the “impressions” testimony assisted the jury in understanding Agent McGarry’s testimony about the intercepted conversations—what the parties to the conversations said and what they meant. This testimony 18 Nos. 07-2649 & 07-2930 also assisted the jury in determining several facts in issue, including whether the defendants knowingly and intentionally participated in the charged conspiracy and their roles and extent of their involvement in that conspiracy. The defendants rely on United States v. Grinage, 390 F.3d 746 (2d Cir. 2004), in contending that the “impressions” testimony was erroneously admitted. We, however, disagree with the Second Circuit’s view of what is and what is not impermissible lay opinion testimony. In any event, Grinage seems unlike this case in a critical respect. The evidence at trial in this case established that certain words had certain meanings to conversation participants at different times; the speakers were making it up as they went along. They did not employ typical drug code words. That does not appear to have been the situation in Grinage where the narcotics code words were more readily understandable and not unique to the specific conspiracy, let alone particular conversation, at issue. See id. at 748 (recounting testimony of DEA agent that participants in telephone conversation about drug deals did not use code). Thus, Agent McGarry’s impressions testimony was not based on any specialized knowledge gained from his law enforcement training and experience in narcotics trafficking generally. Rather, his understanding of these conversations came only as a result of the particular things he perceived from monitoring intercepted calls, observing drug transactions of these conspirators, and talking with the cooperating conspirators about this drug operation as the investigation rolled into the trial preparation phase. He had become intimately familiar with each voice on the calls, particular mannerisms of the speakers and the habits of the conspirators. Nos. 07-2649 & 07-2930 19 We are guided by our recent decision in United States v. Oriedo, 498 F.3d 593, (7th Cir. 2007), in which we held that an agent’s testimony about how drug dealers use baggies to package drugs was erroneously admitted as lay opinion testimony. We said that the agent’s testimony “fits squarely within this court’s precedent defining expert testimony by officers as to matters within their experience observing narcotics trafficking practices.” Id. at 603. In reaching this conclusion, we explained that the agent’s “testimony was not limited to what he observed in the search or to other facts derived exclusively from this particular investigation; instead, he brought the wealth of his experience as a narcotics officer to bear on those observations and made connections for the jury based on that specialized knowledge.” Id. (emphasis added); see also United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 441 (5th Cir. 2001) (holding agent’s testimony about code words used in recorded calls admissible as lay opinion because it was based on the agent’s “extensive participation in the investigation of this conspiracy, . . . [which] allowed him to form opinions concerning the meaning of certain code words used in this drug ring based on his personal perceptions” (emphasis added)). Here, though, the code words used in the intercepted conversations were unique to this conspiracy and, at times, unique to the particular intercepted conversation. As the district judge observed, the words about which Agent McGarry testified were not “words in any other telephone calls that [he] ha[d] heard.” Therefore, the agent’s “impressions” testimony was based on his own personal observations and perceptions derived from this particular case. Such testimony is admissible as lay opinion testimony. See Oriedo, 498 F.3d at 603. 20 Nos. 07-2649 & 07-2930 In sum, Agent McGarry’s “impressions” testimony was not expert testimony. It was not based on scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. Instead, his testimony was lay opinion testimony. To be sure, the jury was well aware that Agent McGarry had years of experience as a law enforcement officer. But we do not think that he was cloaked with an “aura of expertise” which allowed the jury to be unduly swayed by his testimony or that his testimony was based on his specialized knowledge as a DEA agent for several years. Furthermore, at times, Agent McGarry’s testimony as to the meaning of certain words used in a conversation was corroborated by the testimony of another witness such as Pittman. The defendants argue that Agent McGarry acted as a summary witness with respect to the intercepted telephone conversations. The record does not support this argument. He did not summarize the conversations; he testified what his impressions or opinions were as to the meaning of words used in the conversations. Rollins Sr. argues that the admission of the “impressions” testimony usurped the jury’s role by providing an overall conclusion of criminal conduct. But unlike the agent’s testimony in United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201, 213-14 (2d Cir. 2005), cited by Rollins Sr., Agent McGarry was not merely telling the jury what result to reach as to the defendants’ culpability. While Agent McGarry’s testimony approaches the line dividing lay opinion testimony from expert opinion testimony, we find no error in the district court’s decision to allow the “impressions” testimony where, as here, it is based on the agent’s perceptions derived from the investiNos. 07-2649 & 07-2930 21 gation of this particular conspiracy. The experienced trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting this testi- mony under Rule 701. Besides, the other evidence of guilt of these two defendants is so overwhelming that even if the McGarry “impressions” testimony had crossed the line, it would have, at worst, amounted to harmless error.