Opinion ID: 808619
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony Employing Computer Mapping

Text: Next, Baker challenges the testimony of FBI Agent Mark Gillen. Gillen had used commercially available software to create a map of Baker’s and Clayton’s locations from records of their cell phone use. This map was admitted into evidence as Government Exhibit 200. Defense Counsel did not object to its admission. Baker now argues that the agent’s testimony required specialized knowledge that was not in the jury’s possession and, therefore, the agent’s testimony was inadmissible. Baker, however, failed to object to the agent’s testimony on these grounds at trial. Therefore, this claim is raised for the first time on appeal and will be reviewed for plain error. FED.R.CRIM.P. 52(b). We find no error here, much less a plain one. 4 Gillen utilized a commercially available software program called “Microsoft Streets and Trips.” The agent explained his work as follows: Q: And how did you create Exhibit 200? A: I went to specific calls on certain dates, went to the call detail records and found out what cell tower, the location of that cell tower was, and then I imported the locations of the cell tower with a commercially available software program, and then plotted the locations of the towers, and then matched the calls to that. Given the omnipresent nature of computer mapping software in today’s society--- websites such as Mapquest.com and Google Earth come to mind---the agent’s testimony about his use of the mapping software was not expert testimony and it was not an error for the District Court to properly admit it as fact. Additionally, even if the admission of this mapping testimony was error, Baker has not demonstrated how he was prejudiced. Baker was not blindsided by Gillen’s testimony. Indeed, the Government turned over the map Gillen created to the defense well before trial. The Government argues and the record confirms that Baker made no attempt to challenge the map or the method used to create it. Also, Baker never sought a continuance so that his own expert might review the map and the methods Gillen used to produce it. 1 1 Baker also challenges the admission of testimony provided by Eric Tyrell, the custodian of records for Sprint Nextel Communications. Tyrell’s testimony revealed that the cell phone records which were placed by the Government into evidence were records that were kept in the ordinary course of business. The record contains no objection by Baker to this testimony. On direct examination, Tyrell testified as to the contents of these records as well as the cell-site location for each call. Tyrell also indicated that cell phones are “designed to find the strongest signal.” Arguing that it was expert testimony, 5