Opinion ID: 2803111
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Testimony Based on Speculation

Text: On direct examination, Xiomara testified that the notation M.I. in one of the drug ledgers written by coconspirator Sandra Fernandez-Espinosa21 could have referred to either Mimi (Sonia's nickname) or another co-conspirator, Miguelito. Sonia claims on appeal that this testimony was admitted in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 602 because Xiomara lacked sufficient personal knowledge to connect the ledger notation to Sonia. Rule 602 provides: A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness's own testimony. We have previously stated that under Rule 602, testimony is inadmissible only if in the proper exercise of the trial court's discretion it finds that the witness could not have actually perceived or observed what he testified to. United States v. Brown, 669 F.3d 10, 22 (1st Cir. 2012). Personal knowledge can include inferences and opinions, so long as they are grounded in personal observations and experiences. United States v. Rodriguez, 162 F.3d 135, 144 (1st Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). 21 The ledgers were seized by the agents and had previously been admitted into evidence without objection. -50- As a threshold matter, Sonia and the government dispute whether Sonia's trial counsel made a contemporaneous objection to this testimony at trial. We need not definitively decide whether her claim of error is preserved because, even under the less deferential standard of review for preserved claims of error, Sonia fails to show that the admission of the ledger testimony constituted reversible error. Simply put, the jury was entitled to hear Xiomara's testimony and afford it the proper amount of weight. Xiomara testified that she personally tallied the drugs with FernandezEspinosa, and that she watched Fernandez-Espinosa make recordings in the ledger. Given Xiomara's role in the conspiracy, and her testimony that Sonia acted as a runner, Xiomara could have fairly inferred that the notation referred to one of the two coconspirators she named. See Rodriguez, 162 F.3d at 144. Moreover, considering Xiomara, Delgado, and Andy's other testimony about Sonia's involvement, any error caused by the introduction of the evidence was harmless. See United States v. Muñoz-Franco, 487 F.3d 25, 63 (1st Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Sonia makes a similar Rule 602 argument, this one indisputably raised for the first time on appeal, about Xiomara's testimony that she saw Sonia carrying bags containing drugs while acting as a runner for the organization. We find no plain error in the district court's decision to admit this unobjected-to -51- testimony. Xiomara's belief that the bags contained drugs were based on what everybody knew. Absent an objection, the district court lacked an opportunity to determine whether Xiomara meant that co-conspirators had told her what was in the bags, in which case the evidence may have been admissible under the co-conspirator hearsay exception, see Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E),22 or whether her statement was based on unsupported speculation. We thus decline the invitation to disturb the district court's judgment based on the cold appellate record. Cf. United States v. Houlihan, 92 F.3d 1271, 1297 (1st Cir. 1996). Finally, Sonia makes a two-sentence argument that Delgado lacked personal knowledge to testify that Sonia stored the organization's drug trafficking proceeds. She claims that the testimony was based on inadmissible hearsay--statements by coconspirator Zavala-Martí–-but her argument is based upon a misreading of the trial transcript. When asked how he knew that the drug money was given to Sonia, Delgado testified that he saw her. There was no contemporaneous objection to this testimony at trial. Of course, personally viewing Sonia procure the money was 22 Rule 801(d)(2)(E) provides that a statement offered against a party that is made by that party's co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy is not hearsay. -52- a sufficient basis for Delgado to conclude that Sonia served in that role.23