Opinion ID: 754615
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Expert Testimony About Drug Smuggling

Text: 47 The appellants argue that the district court should not have allowed the government to introduce expert testimony by a DEA intelligence research specialist pertaining to maritime drug smuggling. They contend this evidence should have been excluded as impermissible drug courier profile evidence. We disagree. 48 A drug courier profile is a somewhat informal compilation of characteristics believed to be typical of persons unlawfully carrying narcotics. Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 440, 100 S.Ct. 2752, 65 L.Ed.2d 890 (1980). Drug courier profile evidence is extremely prejudicial and may be used only in limited circumstances, such as to establish modus operandi ... in exceptional, complex cases. United States v. Lim, 984 F.2d 331, 335 (9th Cir.1993). This is such a case. The DEA intelligence research specialist's testimony was necessary to inform the jury of the techniques employed by drug dealers in their illegal trade, techniques with which an ordinary juror would most probably be unfamiliar. United States v. Figueroa-Lopez, 125 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.1997). 49 The specialist testified about fifteen different smuggling routes over air, land and sea, and gave a detailed explanation of the complexity of maritime smuggling. She related how mother ships, which may be disguised as fishing vessels, take circuitous routes to their destinations to avoid detection. She also explained that drug trafficking organizations are compartmentalized, in that different groups are responsible for different functions, so that each group has limited knowledge of the operation. 50 We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the DEA specialist's testimony describing maritime drug smuggling. The evidence was admissible to establish modus operandi.