Opinion ID: 673830
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Gang Testimony

Text: 30 The government's first witness in its case-in-chief was Keith Johnson, an unindicted coconspirator and member of the Crenshaw Mafia Bloods gang (the Bloods). Keith Johnson testified generally about the business of drug trafficking, the Bloods, and gang membership, and specifically about the associations between the defendants. The defendants make two arguments challenging Keith Johnson's testimony. First, they argue that the district court erred when it failed to hold a hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 104 to determine whether Keith Johnson was qualified to testify as an expert witness. The district court, instead, made its evidentiary ruling based upon foundational testimony given before the jury. The defendants further argue that Keith Johnson's testimony regarding gangs and gang activities should have been excluded pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because any probative value of the testimony was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. 31 The district court did not abuse its discretion when it failed to hold a separate hearing regarding the admissibility of Keith Johnson's testimony. 32 Rule 702 mandates that the district court act as 'gatekeeper' for the admission of novel scientific evidence. Before admitting ... expert testimony, the court must conclude, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) that the proposed testimony constitutes (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue. 33 United States v. Martinez, 3 F.3d 1191, 1196 (8th Cir.1993) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 734, 126 L.Ed.2d 697 (1994). Here, the district court made the preliminary determination required by Rule 104. It, however, made that determination based upon Keith Johnson's foundational testimony before the jury. We hold the district court did not err in making its determination in this manner. 34 Moreover, the district court properly allowed Keith Johnson to testify as an expert on drug trafficking, relying upon Keith Johnson's extensive experience in the business of drug trafficking, evidenced by six years setting up various drug distribution centers in different cities. Again, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 permits a district court to allow such testimony if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Fed.R.Evid. 702 (emphasis added). 9 Thus, when determining the admissibility of expert testimony, the relevant inquiry is whether Keith Johnson's testimony would be helpful to the jury's understanding of the evidence. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 2799, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) ([A]n expert's testimony [must] both rest[ ] on a reliable foundation and [be] relevant to the task at hand.). We hold that Keith Johnson's testimony was helpful to the jury: The jury's understanding of the conspiracy was aided by a global understanding of drug distribution networks, particularly in light of the various roles the defendants played in the conspiracy. 10 35 The defendants argue the district court abused its discretion when it allowed Keith Johnson to testify to certain gang-related activities, claiming that the proffered testimony was substantially more prejudicial that probative. See Fed.R.Evid. 403. In this context,  'unfair prejudice' ... means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis. Id. advisory committee's note. Thus, we examine Keith Johnson's gang-related testimony to determine whether it created an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis. 36 Keith Johnson gave considerable testimony regarding (1) his background in drug trafficking; (2) the Omaha cocaine distribution system and set-up; (3) his California connections with several of the defendants; (4) his first-hand knowledge that some of the defendants were involved in either distributing, cooking, 11 or fronting cocaine; 12 (5) his past and current gang associations; (6) the relationship between his gang, the Bloods, and other gangs, specifically the Crips; (7) his knowledge of, and how he ascertained, the gang associations of the various conspiracy members; and (8) his association and recruitment of Cleveland Johnson. 13 Keith Johnson's testimony served to establish the historical, geographical, and business connections the defendants had with each other. 37 We agree that a defendant may not be convicted of a drug crime through his association with a club or group known to be involved in drug trafficking. See United States v. Roark, 924 F.2d 1426, 1434 (8th Cir.1991) (the jury could not disregard the entire theme of the trial: guilty by association). But, although Keith Johnson's testimony linked four of the defendants with gangs, it fell far short of establishing that they were guilty of drug trafficking by association. Specific and circumscribed evidence of gang association may be necessary in a trial to show the nature and extent of [the defendants'] association, which in turn bears on whether they conspired. United States v. Sparks, 949 F.2d 1023, 1026 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1987, 118 L.Ed.2d 584 (1992); accord United States v. Lewis, 910 F.2d 1367, 1372 (7th Cir.1990) (evidence in government's case-in-chief of gang association necessary to establish a joint venture between the defendants). 38 Keith Johnson's testimony was replete with specific details about the individual defendants' associations either with each other or with the drug trafficking trade. His testimony also included evidence that he, Cleveland Johnson, Scott, Harris, and Williams were involved in gangs. However, this evidence was not, as was the case in Roark, the entire theme of the trial, much less a substantial theme of Keith Johnson's testimony. Because there was significant probative value to Keith Johnson's gang-related testimonyit served to clarify the connections between some of the defendants--and it did not substitute for evidence of actual participation in the drug distribution ring, we hold that the evidence was not substantially more prejudicial than probative. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this testimony into evidence.