Opinion ID: 781605
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Biggs's Testimony

Text: 7 The principal issue on appeal is whether the testimony of Special Agent Richard Biggs of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) — the case agent and also the government's expert on the use of code words in narcotics conversations — exceeded its proper bounds and therefore should have been excluded. Biggs became the case agent for the investigation in February 1997, after the wiretaps were concluded and the defendants had been arrested and arraigned. Biggs had monitored the wiretap interceptions in the case for about two months and prepared draft transcripts of those intercepts. As is common in drug conspiracy cases, most of the conversations on tape were disguised and ambiguous. The government called Biggs as an expert to testify about the meanings of the various code words used in the recorded conversations. The district court found that Biggs was qualified as an expert on the basis of his extensive experience in the area of narcotics trafficking as a police officer and a DEA agent, monitoring thousands of phone calls between suspected drug dealers. 8 The court cautioned the prosecutor to limit Biggs's testimony to words of the trade, jargon, and general practices of drug dealers, rather than testimony offering sweeping conclusions and interpretations about the general meaning of conversations. Biggs testified at some length about the meanings of words used in the recorded conversations. He recited as the basis for his conclusions both his prior law enforcement experience and his knowledge of the investigation from the wire-tapped conversations and his personal conversations with the other agents, witnesses, and co-conspirators. Biggs testified about intercepted co-conspirator statements characterizing the quality or condition of the heroin and the significance that those statements would have within the drug trade. For example, Biggs explained that when Miller asked Griffin is it dry, he was asking whether the heroin was too wet to sell. Prior to Biggs's testimony, the trial court had assumed that dry would refer to being out of drugs. At other points, Biggs testified that cooked and tasted a little funny were descriptions of crack cocaine. Biggs also testified that when McGee said he definitely goin' to come through today, get all his B licks today, B-licks referred to heroin. 9 In addition to interpreting drug jargon, Biggs's testimony included explanations of numerous statements in intercepted conversations between the appellants and Leonard Miller, none of whom testified. At one point during his testimony, Biggs admitted that some of his conclusions were based upon [his] background and training including [his] knowledge and involvement in this case. Indeed, many parts of Biggs's testimony appear to have been based primarily upon his familiarity with the specifics of the case, rather than his general expertise in the drug trade. For example, Biggs explained that when Leonard Miller said the other one and the what you call `ems that they go in,' Miller was probably referring to crack cocaine and its packaging materials, and in the same conversations, Miller's phrase little packs referred to the small packages that drugs go into. Biggs also testified that Miller's statement to McGee, just make sure you don't hit `em in his head when he see you don't give him nothing, was an instruction not to supply any heroin to Big Dog. Elsewhere, Miller berated Griffin because five mother fuckers tryin' to get in touch with you, which Biggs interpreted to mean that [h]e has five customers that need to be supplied with cocaine or heroin. Biggs also testified that when Miller told Griffin, Al going to give you six dollars and you going to give him ten, six dollars refers to payment for previously supplied heroin, and Mr. Miller wants Mr. Griffin to give Mr. McGee another quantity of heroin, ten bundles. The defense objected to Biggs's testimony about the meaning of the taped conversations. The court overruled these objections, while also noting its concern that the testimony was straying from proper expertise about drug jargon. 10 McGee and Griffin challenge Biggs's testimony on several grounds. They argue first, that the testimony should have been excluded because the taped conversations were readily interpretable; second, that Biggs's testimony that certain conversations referred to specific drugs was impermissible; third, that Biggs's dual roles as case agent and as expert witness allowed him to serve as a summary witness, repeating and bolstering evidence previously received and thereby prejudicing the appellants; and fourth, that Biggs relied on inadmissible hearsay in violation of their Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. We will address each of these arguments in turn after briefly reviewing the general rules of evidence governing expert testimony.