Opinion ID: 203873
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Casas Decision

Text: In Casas, we criticized the government's misguided use of a government agent as an overview witness to map out its case and to describe the role played by individual defendants. 356 F.3d at 117. In that case, DEA Agent Stoothoff described an elaborate drug trafficking organization that he said included the defendants, and he testified that this organization handled specific massive quantities of cocaine and heroin. Id. at 118. We held that this testimony was improper, id. at 120-21, and fatally flawed for a number of reasons. Id. at 119. First, the agent's testimony went well beyond his personal knowledge, and he did not differentiate the testimony that was based on personal knowledge from other sources of information, often hearsay. Id. at 118-19. Second, instead of present[ing] testimony about the characteristics of large-scale drug organizations in general, he essentially testified that each of the defendants was guilty of the conspiracy charged. Id. at 119. This was particularly troubling because there was no indication that Agent Stoothoff's conclusions that the defendants were members of the drug organization were even based on testimony that was eventually presented at trial and could be evaluated by the jury.... In fact, Agent Stoothoff's testimony was likely, at least in part, based on the statements of a witness that the government chose not to call at trial; the record shows that the purported leader of the conspiracy, Israel Perez-Delgado, cooperated with the government and provided information. But Israel Perez-Delgado did not testify. The defendants had no chance to cross-examine him, did not know what he had said to the government, and had no basis to challenge a conclusion drawn from what he had said. Id. Casas identified three characteristics of overview testimony that make it inherently problematic. Id. First, such testimony raises the very real specter that the jury verdict could be influenced by statements of fact or credibility assessments... not in evidence. Id. Second, there is... the possibility that later testimony might be different than what the overview witness assumed. Id. at 119-20. Finally, [o]verview testimony by government agents is especially problematic because juries may place greater weight on evidence perceived to have the imprimatur of the government. Id. at 120. Unfortunately, prosecutors from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Puerto Rico have not heeded our warning in Casas. Since that opinion was issued, we have repeatedly been forced to chide the government for its continued improper use of overview witnesses despite our admonitions about this practice. [2] Indeed, the government itself must now concede that portions of Toro's testimony were precisely the type of testimony condemned by this Court in United States v. Casas.  This statement is eerily familiar. See Rodríguez, 525 F.3d at 96 (As the Government concedes, Agent Toro's statement ... was precisely the sort of improper overview testimony from a case agent that we have condemned.) [3] This regrettable history requires us to address once again the problematic nature of overview testimony and to clarify the limited scope of its proper use.