Opinion ID: 202178
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Officers Cepero, Joyce, and Prior

Text: 79 Lizardo asserts that interpretations of the conversations made by officers Jaime Cepero, Bryan Joyce, and Richard Prior were also prejudicial. These contentions are easily disposed of. First, in a conversation between Bello and Lizardo, Lizardo requested a meeting at the restaurant that begins with the numbers. Sergeant Prior surmised that he meant the Ninety-Nine Restaurant. Lizardo did not object to this testimony, and this testimony was not in error, never mind plain error. 80 Lizardo also contests Trooper Cepero's testimony that he concluded from statement (2) that Lizardo was involved in criminal activity. This was not an improper interpretation for two reasons. First, it was Cepero's subjective conclusion after hearing the conversation and not an interpretation of the meaning of the conversation. See United States v. Morton, 391 F.3d 274, 277 (D.C.Cir.2004). Second, this statement was elicited on cross-examination by Lizardo's counsel, who cannot now contest his own invited error. See McDonald v. Fed. Labs., Inc., 724 F.2d 243, 248 (1st Cir.1984). 81 Finally, Lizardo argues that Trooper Joyce improperly interpreted the phrase one of those places as a plan by Lizardo and Bello to arrange for a pickup of drugs by Bello. However, on the pages of the transcript cited by Lizardo, Joyce does not provide any interpretation of the phrase one of those places.