Opinion ID: 2975336
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Give Expert Witness Instruction

Text: At trial, the government presented the testimony of Lieutenant Kipling Belcher. Belcher testified as an expert based on his years of experience participating in drug investigations. Cobbs does not argue on appeal that Belcher’s testimony was inadmissible.1 See United States v. Tocco, 200 F.3d 401, 418-19 (6th Cir. 2000)(case agent could testify both as a fact witness and as an expert 1 Cobbs filed a motion in limine prior to trial to exclude Belcher’s expert testimony. The district court denied the motion without prejudice, noting that the court could not definitively decide whether Belcher could offer an expert opinion until the government produced evidence of the drug trafficking materials found in the instant case. Cobbs did not renew his motion in limine and did not object to Belcher’s testimony at trial. 23 witness concerning organized crime enterprise); United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 676, 680-83 (6th Cir. 1996)(affirming decision to permit officer to testify as a fact witness and as an expert on drug trafficking, an area not within the experience of the average juror), abrog. on other grounds recognized, Morales v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 151 F.3d 500 (6th Cir. 1998). Rather, Cobbs contends that the trial court erred in failing to give an instruction on the distinction between Belcher’s testimony as an expert witness and a fact witness. Since Cobbs did not object to the failure to give such an instruction, the plain error analysis applies. United States v. Rogers, 118 F.3d 466, 471 (6th Cir. 1997). This court noted in Thomas that “when a police officer testifies in two different capacities in the same case, there is a significant risk that the jury will be confused by the officer’s dual role.” Thomas, 74 F.3d at 682. We cautioned the district court and the prosecutor to “take care to assure that the jury is informed of the dual roles of a law enforcement officer as a fact witness and an expert witness, so that the jury can give proper weight to each type of testimony.” Id. at 683. We held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the officer to testify as an expert where the prosecutor delineated the transition between the examination of the officer as an expert witness and questions relating to his role as a fact witness, and where the district court gave a cautionary instruction at the conclusion of the case. Id. Under Thomas, the district court was required to instruct the jury on the dual role of Belcher as a fact and expert witness. The issue presented here is whether it was plain error for the district court to fail to give an explanatory instruction to the jury in this case. Cobbs relies on United States v. Lopez-Medina, 461 F.3d 724 (6th Cir. 2006), in which this court found that the failure to instruct the jury constituted plain error. In that case, no drugs were 24 recovered from the defendant’s residence. One agent was questioned as an expert about items he himself had seized from defendant’s residence, such as vacuum sealers, currency which smelled of ether, packaging materials, and the meaning of cryptic notations on scraps of paper. Id. at 744-45. Another agent offered an opinion that documents recovered from the house were drug ledgers. Id. at 745. We noted that the agents’ testimony at trial lacked any clear demarcation between expert and fact witness roles. Id. at 744. In applying a plain error analysis to the failure to instruct, the Lopez-Medina court also considered other evidentiary errors which occurred at trial, primarily the improper admission of the criminal records and mug shots of defendant’s alleged co-conspirators. Id. at 745 (noting that the jury instruction error, “in conjunction with the other evidentiary errors we find occurred in Medina’s trial, may have affected the outcome of his trial and therefore warrants a reversal of his conviction.”) The panel concluded that “the introduction of Corona’s and Jackson’s mug shots and criminal history to the jury here compels that we vacate Medina’s conviction” and that the “additional error” in the jury instructions “further buttresses our conclusion of prejudice.” Id. at 749. The circumstances in the instant case are distinguishable. Belcher first testified concerning the packaging of crack cocaine for distribution using the corners of plastic bags, noting that this method was consistent with the crack cocaine found in this case. He then testified concerning the manner of using crack cocaine, the typical dosage, and the use of digital scales, police scanners and guns by drug dealers. There was no testimony that he participated in the execution of the search warrant or in the recovery of any of the evidence on which he was asked to comment. At the conclusion of that portion of Belcher’s testimony, the prosecutor stated, “Now, let’s talk about the specifics of this case. Did you have a role in the investigation of 7330 Youker Road?” Tr. p. 146. 25 Belcher responded, “Yes,” and proceeded to describe his interview of Cobbs following his arrest. Thus, the prosecutor made an effort to delineate the transition between his examination of Belcher as an expert witness and questions relating to his role as a fact witness. In addition, Belcher was not specifically offered as an expert witness to the jury. The word “expert” does not appear during his testimony. Indeed, Cobbs may have decided not to request a cautionary instruction as a matter of strategy to avoid elevating Belcher’s testimony to expert status before the jury. See Persinger, 83 Fed.Appx. at 60 (finding no plain error where neither the district court nor the parties treated the agent “with the deference normally accorded experts.”) Therefore, there is no clear danger that the jury placed undue emphasis on or gave undue credence to Belcher’s testimony in the absence of an instruction. The instant case is also distinguishable because the district court below made no errors in the admission of evidence which prejudiced Cobbs. Further, unlike the largely circumstantial case in Lopez-Medina, which depended more on the expert testimony of the agents to connect the defendant to the conspiracy, here there is ample direct evidence of Cobbs’s participation in the sale of crack cocaine, including the testimony of eye witnesses. A large quantity of crack cocaine was found in his residence along with several firearms and an illegal machine gun. Cobbs also made incriminating statements. Thus, we cannot say that if the jury had heard an instruction concerning Belcher’s dual role, the jury’s verdict would have been different. Cobbs has not shown that he suffered substantial prejudice, or that a miscarriage of justice resulted. This claim of error is not well taken.