Opinion ID: 2799908
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admissibility of Case Agent Testimony6

Text: Next, Moten complains that the District Court allowed the case agent to testify as to the meaning of various terms on recorded phone conversations that were played for the jury during trial. For example, Moten objects to the case agent’s describing to the jury his understanding of the terms “lock and load,” “we low as shit,” “jawn,” “I had to let the pump off,” “popping fly on you,” “four pounder,” and “rained on him” because these words or phrases did not require explanation or were not of a coded nature. (Opening Br. at 36-41.) But, while the slang may be second nature to Moten, its meaning is not selfevident. Thus, the agent’s testimony was potentially helpful in aiding the jury’s understanding of what transpired. See Fed. R. Evid. 701 (lay testimony is permitted where it is “rationally based on the witness’s perception; helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge”). The challenged testimony is of a kind widely permitted. Cf. United States v. Gibbs, 190 F.3d 188, 211 (3d Cir. 1999) (expert witness could testify, albeit under Rule 702, as to the meaning of ambiguous or coded terms such as the fact that “jawn” meant “cocaine,” that to “hit” someone meant to page them on a beeper, that “on post” meant “ready and waiting,” and that a “quarter” meant “$2,500”). Furthermore, the agent did not have a “dual role” of fact and expert witness 6 We review the District Court’s ruling as to the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Knight, 700 F.3d 59, 62 (3d Cir. 2012). In the absence of an objection, we review a Confrontation Clause challenge for plain error. United States v. Christie, 624 F.3d 558, 569 (3d Cir. 2010). 9 requiring a special instruction and caution to the jury. He testified to facts within his personal knowledge, and, in any event, Moten requested no such instruction at trial. While not entirely clear, it appears that Moten is also advancing a Confrontation Clause objection. He indicates that there is a Confrontation Clause issue because the case agent’s testimony contained information that he could have obtained only through conversations with a non-testifying confidential informant. For example, Moten contends that the agent’s testimony that Moten got rid of a bulletproof vest had to be based on offthe-record conversations with an informant because there is “no evidence of record that Moten said that in a recorded conversation.” (Opening Br. at 41.) But, that is incorrect. There is a recorded conversation between Moten and a confidential informant in which Moten states that he got rid of the bulletproof vest – Moten cites to it in his opening brief, attaches it as an exhibit, and then further cites to the trial transcript that describes the playing of the recording to the jury. Further, because the statement about the bulletproof vest is Moten’s own statement, there is plainly no Confrontation Clause problem. See Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 823 (2006) (holding that the Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial hearsay); Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) (statement made by a defendant that is offered against him at trial is not hearsay). As another example, Moten says that, after the prosecutor played a recorded conversation with the confidential informant in which the informant referenced a woman named “Jewel,” the agent testified that “Jewel” was the informant’s girlfriend. (App. at 3772.) Moten argues that there were two “Jewels” and that the agent somehow knew “the difference between the two Jewels; one being [the confidential informant’s] 10 girlfriend as opposed to Jewel a/k/a Celestine Leavingston.” (Opening Br. at 40.) According to Moten, the agent could only have understood that difference because of an off-the-record conversation with the confidential informant. Even if that were true, however, the testimony does not pose a Confrontation Clause problem because it was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 n.9 (2004) (“The [Confrontation] Clause also does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.”); accord United States v. Brown, 560 F.3d 754, 764 (8th Cir. 2009) (admission of statement regarding the street nickname of victim’s attacker did not violate the Confrontation Clause where it was “offered to explain why an officer conducted an investigation in a certain way”). Likewise, Moten complains about the agent’s testimony as to other background information regarding the investigation, such as what prompted the agent to seek out a search warrant for the residence of Markita Vareen, a woman alleged to be storing weapons for the Harlem Boys, and what the agent did to obtain Moten’s telephone number. Again, however, those statements were not offered for their truth; instead, they were offered to provide context to the investigation and explain the agent’s actions and thus do not amount to Confrontation Clause violations. See United States v. Gibbs, 506 F.3d 479, 486 (6th Cir. 2007) (testimony regarding tip that defendant may have had a gun did not violate the Confrontation Clause because it was “offered simply as background evidence” to explain the officers’ actions). 11