Opinion ID: 203873
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Drug quantities and drug sales at Covadonga

Text: The prosecutor asked Agent Toro this question: Based on the investigation and based on all of your training and experience as a law enforcement officer, approximately how much cocaine was being sold in Covadonga between the years 2002 until [the end of the investigation in 2003]? Toro responded with estimates of the amounts of cocaine, crack, heroin, and marijuana sold monthly during that time period, stating that his estimates had been arrived at using the videos and interview of witnesses and reports. The government concedes that this drug quantity testimony was impermissible under Casas. In Casas, part of the overview testimony we found inappropriate was testimony that the organization handled specific massive quantities of cocaine and heroin. 356 F.3d at 118. That statement may account for the government's concession that Agent Toro's drug quantity estimates were inappropriate. Agent Stoothoff was not testifying as an expert in Casas, and, based on Agent Toro's testimony that he had arrived at his drug quantity estimation based on, inter alia, witness interviews and other reports, it appears that Agent Toro's testimony as to drug quantity may not have been offered in his expert capacity but rather as a fact witness. In any event, in light of the government's concession, this is not an issue that we need decide here. Moreover, while we accept the government's concession that Toro's drug quantity testimony was improper under these circumstances, we do not imply that a properly qualified expert may never offer valid drug quantity testimony where that testimony comports with the other requirements for expert testimony under the Federal Rules. Additionally, we note that because Agent Toro's drug quantity testimony appears to have been based at least in part on interviews with individuals who did not testify at trial, such testimony also has the potential to raise Crawford problems.