Opinion ID: 2994672
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Objections to Testimony Regarding

Text: the Use of the Term Crack Cocaine Wash further objects to the district court’s decision to allow Consuela Jones and Antonio Jones to testify about the identity of controlled substances at trial. As part of a pre-trial motion in limine Wash objected to this type of testimony, but the district court decided not to render a decision on the question at that time. At trial, the district court allowed Consuela Jones and Antonio Jones to testify about what they believed was crack cocaine. We review a district court’s decision to admit evidence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Johnson, 137 F.3d 970, 974 (7th Cir. 1998). A determination made by a district court judge regarding the admissibility of evidence ’is treated with great deference because of the trial judge’s first-hand exposure to the witnesses and the evidence as a whole, and because of his familiarity with the case and ability to gauge the likely impact of the evidence in the context to the entire proceeding.’ Id. at 974 (quoting United States v. Torres, 977 F.2d 321, 329 (7th Cir. 1992)). The record reveals that Wash’s attorney objected several times to the testimony given by Consuela Jones and Antonio Jones when they used the term crack cocaine. The basic premise of the objection was that witness lay persons [were] testifying as to the chemical composition and the actual identity of something for which they are not competent to testify. Wash contends that neither Consuela Jones nor Antonio Jones were qualified as experts on the issue of controlled substances and therefore the testimony they presented was lay opinion. According to Wash, lay opinion needs to be based upon first-hand knowledge and Rule 701 states that non-expert testimony is limited to opinions or inferences that are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. Fed.R.Evid. 701. According to Wash, Consuela Jones testified that she had never used crack and relied upon her customers’ satisfaction to identify her product as crack. Likewise, Wash argues Antonio Jones premised his identification of his product as crack cocaine upon the fact that none of the people whom he supplied ever complained that it was not crack cocaine. Wash’s position is not persuasive. Consuela Jones and Antonio Jones were no strangers to crack cocaine. United States v. Earnest, 185 F.3d 808, 812 (7th Cir. 1999). Consuela Jones testified that she had been dealing dime bags of crack cocaine for approximately two years. Creating these dime bags was not a haphazard affair, but rather involved a definite methodology. She would purchase 3.5 grams of crack for 100 dollars and break it down with a razor blade into twenty dime bags, which she sold for 10 dollars apiece. She used small ziplock bags to package the dime bags and when she ran out of these she would use small sandwich bags. According to Jones, she sold to crack addicts, her customers were satisfied with her product, and they returned for additional purchases. Antonio Jones also testified that for approximately two years he dealt in what he believed was crack cocaine, including sales to Consuela Jones and Wash, and had received no complaints. [T]hose who smoke, buy, or sell this stuff are the real experts on what is crack. United States v. Bradley, 165 F.3d 594, 596 (7th Cir. 1999). Clearly, Consuela Jones and Antonio Jones were in the business of selling drugs. [T]he people who transport, cook, cut up, bag, and sell crack are the sort of people who tend to know what crack is. United States v. Hardin, 209 F.3d 652, 661 (7th Cir. 2000). Wash additionally notes that Consuela Jones testified that she had never personally used crack cocaine; this is an empty argument since a cashier at Jewel doesn’t have to bite off a piece of the customer’s broccoli to know which vegetable she is ringing up. Id. at 661- 62. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s determination to allow Consuela Jones’s and Antonio Jones’s testimony.