Opinion ID: 182421
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Relevance and Probative Value

Text: Agent Dave Lewis, a special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for approximately twenty-two years, testified regarding the characteristics of crack cocaine as well as the methods involved in the distribution of the drug. Defendant argues that the district court abused its discretion because it failed to assess the relevance and probative value of Agent Lewis's testimony before he was permitted to testify. Defendant did not raise this specific objection during trial; therefore, we review the district court's decision for plain error. We have previously rejected an identical challenge in United States v. Alford, 332 Fed.Appx. 275, 281 (6th Cir.2009), in which the defendant argued that the district court's failure to assess the relevancy and probative value of Agent Lewis's testimony prior to its admission was plain error. Id. We noted that this Court has consistently held that expert testimony by a law enforcement officer about the method of operation of drug dealers is admissible pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 702, id. (citing United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 676, 682 (6th Cir.1996)), and that this Court has deemed Agent Lewis qualified in this area, id. (citing United States v. List, 200 Fed.Appx. 535, 545 (6th Cir.2006)). We found no plain error in the admission of Agent Lewis's testimony, determining that it was highly relevant and helped the jury in resolving the central issue of whether [the defendant] possessed the crack with intent to distribute. Id. at 281-82. There is no reason to reach a different conclusion in this case. The district court properly admitted the expert testimony of Agent Lewis.