Opinion ID: 589445
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prejudicial impact of testimony

Text: 34 Bantula and Romero also contend that the probative value of the testimony was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. See Fed.R.Evid. 403. In United States v. Fleishman, 684 F.2d 1329 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1044 (1982), this court first recognized that testimony about a defendant's role in an illegal enterprise is distinct from inadmissible opinion about the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence. Id. at 1335-36. Reasoning that FRE 704 allows the admission of opinion testimony embracing an ultimate issue of fact, we affirmed the introduction of expert testimony that the defendant was acting as a lookout in a drug conspiracy. Id. at 1336. We also observed that the expert's opinion was necessary to explain the significance of the defendant's seemingly innocuous conduct to the jury. Id. Various cases since Fleishman have permitted the introduction of similar testimony regarding a defendant's role in a drug conspiracy, despite claims that such testimony is unduly prejudicial. See, e.g., United States v. Bosch, 914 F.2d 1239, 1242-44 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Beltran-Rios, 878 F.2d 1208, 1210-13 (9th Cir.1989); Kinsey, 843 F.2d at 387-89. 35 Faced with this wall of precedent, we are compelled to find that the district court did not manifestly err or abuse its discretion in admitting the expert testimony. Here, Officer LaCroix's testimony had probative value in explaining to the jury why Bantula and Romero would be associated with the conspiracy despite the apparent absence of conduct on their part in delivering or guarding the cocaine. Furthermore, the challenged testimony pertained solely to the surveillance and facts in this case, unlike cases involving more generalized testimony which may offer little probative value. Cf. United States v. Echavarria-Olarte, 904 F.2d 1391, 1397-98 (9th Cir.1990) (expert testimony regarding the Medellin Cartel was irrelevant to defendant's activities); see generally Beltran-Rios, 878 F.2d at 1210-11 (noting the judicial hostility to the use of drug courier profile testimony as substantive evidence of guilt).