Opinion ID: 2979160
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Improperly Admitted Expert Testimony

Text: Defendant also challenges the admission of testimony by the government’s expert, Birkenhauer, as violating Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b). When the testimony was given, Defendant’s counsel did not object on that basis. Defendant’s only objection was that Birkenhauer was not qualified. The district court instructed Defendant’s counsel that it could probe Birkenhauer’s qualifications on cross-examination. At no point did Defendant’s counsel argue that the evidence was impermissible under Rule 704(b). Since Defendant failed to make his 704(b) objection to the district court, we review any alleged error under the “plain error” standard. “The ‘plain error’ rule . . . applies where a party objects to an evidentiary determination on specific grounds in the trial court, but on appeal the party asserts new grounds challenging that determination.” United States v. Demjanjuk, 367 F.3d 623, 629 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Evans, 883 F.2d 496, 499 (6th Cir. 1989)). “To establish plain error, [Defendant] must demonstrate that (1) an error occurred; (2) the error was obvious or clear; (3) the error affected his substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” United States v. Mayberry, 540 F.3d 506, 512 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation and quotation omitted). Defendant argues that the district court erred by allowing the government’s purported expert, Birkenhauer, to state his opinion that Defendant’s guns were used to protect drugs and their proceeds. The first inquiry under plain error review is to determine whether the admission of this evidence was even in error. Rule 704(b) states: “No expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of a defendant in a criminal case may state an opinion or inference as to whether the defendant did or did not have the mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged . . .” The requirements of § 924(c) that the gun was possessed “in furtherance” of a drug trafficking offense requires a determination of intent. See Dean v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 1849, 1857 (2009) (noting that the enhancements for violating § 924(c)(i) “clearly require proof of intent”). Defendant contends therefore that Birkenhauer’s testimony opined as to Defendant’s intent in possessing the guns and should have been barred by Rule 704(b). “Law enforcement officers may testify concerning the methods and techniques employed in an area of criminal activity and to establish ‘modus operandi’ of particular crimes.” United States v. Pearce, 912 F.2d 159, 163 (6th Cir.1990). “Rule 704(b), however, prevents an expert witness from testifying that a defendant in a criminal case did or did not have the requisite mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged, as ultimate issues are matters for the trier of fact.” United States v. Combs, 369 F.3d 925, 940 (6th Cir. 2004). A crucial inquiry is “whether the expert actually referred to the intent of the defendant or, instead, simply described in general terms the common practices of those who clearly do possess the requisite intent, leaving unstated the inference that the defendant, having been caught engaging in more or less the same practices, also possessed the requisite intent.” Id. (quoting United States v. Frost, 125 F.3d 346, 383-84 (6th Cir. 1997)). Under this standard, the admission of Birkenhauer’s statement was a clear error. Birkenhauer was unambiguously stating his opinion of the specific mental state of Defendant in terms of Defendant’s purpose in possessing the guns. To repeat, the examination went as follows: Q: Based on your review of the evidence, discussions that you’ve had, your training, your experience, do you have an opinion, based upon a reasonable investigative certainty as a narcotics investigator, regarding the connection between these guns and the crack cocaine that was found in the residence with the guns? A: I do Q: What is that opinion? A: I believe the guns were used to protect drugs and their proceeds. (R. 59 at 80) (emphasis added). That testimony is not describing “in general terms” the conduct of other drug dealers but is instead offering a specific statement that gave Birkenhauer’s opinion as to how Defendant used the guns at issue. “Rule 704(b) may be violated when the prosecutor’s question is plainly designed to elicit the expert’s testimony about the mental state of the defendant, or when the expert triggers the application of Rule 704(b) by directly referring to the defendant’s intent, mental state, or mens rea.” United States v. Watson, 260 F.3d 301, 309 (3d Cir. 2001) (citations and quotations omitted). Birkenhauer directly testified what he believed to be Defendant’s intent, namely that Defendant’s guns “were used to protect drugs and their proceeds.”3 To show plain error, however, Defendant must also show that the error affected a substantial right. An error affected a substantial right if it “affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” United States v. Smith, 601 F.3d 530, 541 (6th Cir. 2010). Defendant’s best argument for why the error should result in a reversal is that the district court specifically referred to Birkenhauer’s opinion in both its written and oral decision rendering a verdict. Despite this obvious mistake, consulting both the judge’s written and oral statements leaves the unmistakable impression that the district court would have found Defendant guilty even without the improper testimony. The district court stated an explanation of its judgment orally and also issued findings of fact and conclusions of law following the bench trial. Its oral and written decisions follow a similar tack. First, the district court noted factors that this Court has considered relevant in determining whether a gun was used in furtherance of a drug crime. See United States v. Mackey, 265 F.3d 457 (6th Cir. 2001). It then explained the circumstantial evidence that it relied on in finding against Defendant. In its written order, the district court cited six pieces of circumstantial evidence for its determination 3 The day before oral argument in this case, the government submitted a letter pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 28(j). The letter cites a recent Eight Circuit case, United States v. Parish, 606 F.3d 480 (8th Cir. 2010). In that case, the court found that testimony from a detective that the amount of crack cocaine “would be intended for distribution” was permissible. Id. at 491. The detective was responding to the question of “whether just based on that amount, [the crack cocaine] would have been intended for distribution or personal use?” Id. at 490-91. The court rejected the 404(b) challenge because the detective’s “testimony concerned the amount; . . . he did not directly testify to [defendant’s] intent, although the jury was free to infer the ultimate conclusion.” Id. at 491. In this case, Birkenhauer’s challenged testimony was based on all of the factors specific to this case and his view of what those factors said about Defendant’s intent. that five of Defendant’s guns were possessed in furtherance of Defendant’s admitted drug trafficking. 1. Defendant’s admission to Det. McGuffey that he sold crack cocaine out of the basement of the residence; 2. The location of the firearms in relation to the crack cocaine located on the dresser in the basement; 3. The fact that the firearms were located in an area where Defendant’s drug transactions were known to occur, to wit, the basement; 4. The presence of electronic scales and ammunition in the basement of the residence; 5. The fact that the firearms were loaded; and 6. The testimony of Sgt. Bill Birkenhauer with the Northern Kentucky Drug Strike Force who opined that drug dealers like Defendant use firearms to protect their drugs and drug proceeds. In this instance, Sgt. Birkenhauer opined that the firearms were possessed by Defendant for that purpose. (R. 36 at 6). The list above gives a litany of reasons why the district court determined that the guns were possessed in furtherance of Defendant’s drug activity. The improper testimony of Birkenhauer constitutes only one of the six pieces of circumstantial evidence. Even more damaging for Defendant, the district court elaborated on its conclusions for more than two additional pages without referencing the improperly admitted testimony.4 The district court repeatedly stressed the close 4 The district court did state that “the testimony of Sgt. Birkenhauer supports the conclusion that none of the guns seized from Defendant’s basement were possessed for collection purposes.” (R. 36 at 8-9). However, this statement refers to Birkenhauer’s testimony that did not run afoul of Rule 704(b). Birkenhauer permissibly described at length the practices of gun collectors as contrasted to drug dealers. This testimony clearly motivated the district court’s second mention of Birkenhauer, since the next sentence was: “Gun collectors do not leave their guns loaded without safety features, and ordinarily store them in gun lockers.” Id. proximity of the weapons to the drugs as well as the fact that all of the weapons were loaded, facts that are highly indicative of improper purpose according to Mackey. In his oral statement, the district court gave its reasoned explanation for why it found five of the six guns were used to further a drug crime and why it rejected that argument for an unloaded shotgun. In this discussion, the district court discussed each gun and emphasized the proximity of the guns to the drugs and whether they were loaded. These findings were based on the factors laid out in Mackey, as well as Birkenhauer’s permissible testimony about the differences between the habits of gun collectors and drug dealers. Four handguns were loaded and within a few feet of the drugs. A rifle was further away, but “it was loaded and easily accessible, which distinguishes, at least in the Court’s view, the other 12 gauge shotgun that was not loaded.” (R. 54 at 147). In discussing why he rejected Defendant’s argument that he was collecting guns, the district court stated “first and most significantly, the fact that each of these firearms were loaded gives the Court its primary reason why I do not believe that these guns were for collection purposes.” Id. Based on the district court’s oral and written justification, we find that the district court would have rendered the same verdict even if Birkenhauer had not been allowed to make the one comment that violates Rule 704(b). The district court assuredly erred in relying on testimony that clearly violated Rule 704(b), but the court’s improper reliance on Birkenhauer’s statement was only one part of the lengthy justification the district court provided in rendering its decision. Therefore, the error did not affect a substantial right, and Defendant’s conviction must be upheld.