Opinion ID: 1034078
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Agents Sagrecy and Briggs Testimony

Text: Agent Sagrecy testified as an expert witness on behalf of the government. The government introduced his testimony as being relevant to the money-laundering counts because his testimony would revolve around “the manner and means employed by criminal organizations in money laundering.” Jones Br. at 28 (quotation marks omitted). Defendants correctly point out that Agent Sagrecy gave both fact testimony and expert opinion testimony and that the line between the two was often indiscernible.40 Agent Briggs testified as a summary witness on behalf of the government. Although the district court did not qualify Agent Briggs as an expert witness, defendants cite various portions of Agent Briggs’s testimony that would qualify as inadmissible lay opinion testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 701.41 The government acknowledges that “Briggs went beyond pure factual recitation when he evaluated some of the evidence based on his training and experience” and that such testimony from a law-enforcement agent is 40 For example, the following exchange occurred between the prosecution and Agent Sagrecy: Q. And as you have been trained, in your experience in money laundering investigations, have you found in your experience and training that organizations often utilize financial transactions to conceal or promote their unlawful activities? A. Yes. Q. And in this case, did you see evidence that there were financial transactions that were involved which were used to promote or conceal the activity? A. Yes. The financial transactions through the salary and the contracts, they appear to be legitimate contracts and salaries. But this actually means a concealing the extortion and the bribery. If it were not for those two, the extortion and bribery, the chances of receiving salaries are very slim. And the same with the contracts. It appears to be legitimate. That’s why people launder money. You want to take dirty money and make it appear clean. R. 854 (03/09/2010 Trial Tr. at 30–31) (Page ID #6981–82); see id. at 32 (Page ID #6983). 41 For example, the following exchange occurred between the prosecution and Agent Briggs: Q. During your investigation, did you find that there were segments of the population of Clay County that were targeted by this enterprise? A. Yes. They tried to partner with large drug dealers, because large drug dealers have a lot of disposable income, number one. Number two, they’re not afraid to break the law. Number three, they want to get politicians in office so if they get arrested locally, they can get the charges taken care of by the sheriff or the judge. R. 880 (03/09/2010 Trial Tr. at 103–04) (Page ID #9687–88). Nos. 11-5291/ 5308/ 5311/ 5312/ 5313/ United States v. Adams et al. Page 61 5336/ 5337/ 5366 generally considered to be expert testimony, which requires a district court to instruct the jury on the dual nature of the testimony: fact testimony and expert opinion testimony. Gov’t Br. at 106. The district court did not instruct the jury as to the dual role of the agents’ testimony. On remand, witnesses giving expert opinion testimony should be qualified as experts by the district court before testifying. Similarly, the district court must specifically instruct the jury as to the dual nature of any witness who gives both fact testimony and expert opinion testimony. United States v. Lopez-Medina, 461 F.3d 724, 745 (6th Cir. 2006).