Opinion ID: 197384
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Agents' Interpretation of the Transcript

Text: 51 The next claim advanced by appellants is that the court erred when it allowed FBI agents to interpret the recorded conversations. Appellants' briefs fail to offer detailed descriptions of the incidents to which they object, although Gonzalez-Maldonado's brief cites to seventeen incidents that are generally alleged to represent occasions on which the agents' interpretations went beyond interpretation of code words. Although appellants objected on certain occasions, they failed to object on many of the instances cited in Gonzalez-Maldonado's brief. 52 Although expert testimony is permitted in order to assist the jury in understanding code-like conversations in tape recordings, interpretations of clear conversations are not admissible. See United States v. Montas, 41 F.3d 775, 783-84 (1st Cir.1994); United States v. Lamattina, 889 F.2d 1191, 1194 (1st Cir.1989). 53 Expert testimony on a subject that is well within the bounds of a jury's ordinary experience generally has little probative value. On the other hand, the risk of unfair prejudice is real. By appearing to put the expert's stamp of approval on the government's theory, such testimony might unduly influence the jury's own assessment of the inference that is being urged. 54 Montas, 41 F.3d at 784. 55 We are conscious of the fact that the interpretation of alleged code-words used by the defendants in a complex case such as this may require the expert to make statements about the context in which those words are being used. Nevertheless, we find that in some of the instances cited by appellants, the court erred by allowing FBI agents to comment on clear statements contained on the tapes. Because we are reversing on other grounds, we need not review each alleged transgression. Instead, we offer an example, in the hope that such errors can be avoided if there is another trial. 56 At one point Agent Plichta observed, in reference to one of the recordings, that the participants in a conversation appeared relieved when they--when they--when they discussed the fact that apparently they'd been able to make the delivery of money and nothing happened. They were both relieved and I believe one of them even chuckles a bit about that. Tr. 5 at 848. That the speakers on the tape were, or were not, relieved is for the jury to determine, and the testimony of the agent does not assist them in this effort.