Opinion ID: 4531772
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Proper Overview Testimony Is Admissible

Text: Special Agent Mesisca’s testimony, including both cross and redirect examination, would extend into the third day of trial. On appeal, Lacerda, Resnick, and Manzoni each take issue with Mesisca’s testimony, arguing that it constituted impermissible overview testimony. We have never addressed the permissible scope and limits of overview testimony in a precedential opinion. Our sister circuits, however, have reviewed overview testimony. They have analogized it to summary testimony. See, e.g., United States v. Moore, 651 F.3d 30, 55–56 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The main difference between summary and overview testimony is that summary testimony comes at the end of trial and overview at the beginning, but both try to connect the dots and convey the big picture to the jury in complex prosecutions. United States v. Banks, 884 F.3d 998, 1023 (10th Cir. 2018). Summary evidence may be safer because the evidence that the officer is connecting has already been heard by the jury. See Moore, 651 F.3d at 56 (citing United States v. Lemire, 720 F.2d 1327, 1349, n.33 (D.C. Cir. 1983)). Because witnesses can change their stories and objections may be sustained, some of the testimony relied on during the initial overview may never materialize at trial. United States v. Casas, 356 F.3d 104, 119–20 (1st Cir. 2004). Vouching is also a problem with overview testimony. See Moore, 651 F.3d at 56–57. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(a), a party can only bolster the credibility of a witness after that witness’s credibility has been attacked. Because overview testimony is the first testimony offered, no witness’s credibility has yet been attacked. Vouching for a witness who has not yet testified would, therefore, be inappropriate. Another serious problem with overview testimony is that it sometimes relies on anticipated witnesses. Thus, it may violate confrontation rights. Testimonial statements cannot be offered against a defendant without the opportunity for cross examination. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). If overview testimony previews the answers of an anticipated 8 witness, such a violation is not easily cured if the expected witness later fails to testify. The D.C. Circuit has explained: Because a witness presenting an overview of the government’s case-in-chief runs the serious risk of permitting the government to impermissibly “paint a picture of guilt before the evidence has been introduced,” and may never be introduced, we join the circuits that have addressed the issue in condemning the practice. Moore, 651 F.3d at 60 (citations omitted). The D.C. Circuit concluded that the government could call as its first witness a law enforcement officer, who is either familiar with the investigation or was personally involved, to explain how the investigation began, what law enforcement entities were involved, and what techniques were used. Id. at 60–61. However, the overview witness could not opine on the ultimate issues of guilt, anticipate evidence that the government hoped to introduce, or express an opinion about the strength of that evidence or the credibility of any potential witnesses. Id. at 61; see also United States v. Rosado-Perez, 605 F.3d 48, 55 (1st Cir. 2010) (cautioning, before government has presented supporting evidence, against presenting an overview of criminal investigation in which witness did not participate); United States v. Brooks, 736 F.3d 921, 930 (10th Cir. 2013) (allowing overview based on personal knowledge, not on hearsay nor on an opinion of defendant’s guilt); but see United States v. Khan, 794 F.3d 1288, 1300 (11th Cir. 2015) (overview proper where officer had personal knowledge of evidence due to officer’s role as lead investigator and his review of evidence). We join our sister circuits and now hold that overview testimony that opines on ultimate issues of guilt, makes assertions of fact outside of the officer’s personal knowledge, or delves into aspects of the investigation in which he did not participate is inadmissible. But an officer who is familiar with an investigation or was personally involved may tell the story of that investigation—how the investigation began, who was 9 involved, and what techniques were used. In addition, with proper foundation, he may offer lay opinion testimony and testify about matters within his personal knowledge.