Opinion ID: 204046
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Voice Identification Expert

Text: Santiago-Torres's principal argument is that the district court erred in denying his request to retain a voice identification expert and his related motion for a continuance to secure that expert's presence at trial. We review a denial of a request to fund expert services for abuse of discretion. United States v. Quñones-Medina, 553 F.3d 19, 25 (1st Cir.2009). The denial of a continuance is likewise reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Rodríguez-Durán, 507 F.3d 749, 762 (1st Cir.2007). Prior to trial, upon defense counsel's request, the district court ordered that the defendants and their counsel be permitted to listen on March 6, 2007, to the audio recordings of the controlled purchases. Nearly two months later, on April 30, Santiago-Torres and other defendants filed a motion to continue the trial date set for May 14, citing ongoing investigations and plea negotiations. On May 1, Santiago-Torres submitted a sealed, ex parte motion requesting funds to retain a voice identification expert, asserting that it was not his voice on the incriminating audio recordings, and the only way he could present a defense against the evidence contained in the audio recordings was through such an expert. Two days later, in an order denying the April 30 motion for continuance of trial, the court referenced, but did not expressly rule on, Santiago-Torres's ex parte request for a voice identification expert: Furthermore, defendants' counsel listened to the United States' evidence on March 6, 2007 and only now request[s] an expert on voice identification. [5] Santiago-Torres renewed his request for a voice identification expert in a second sealed ex parte motion on May 7. The following day, the court issued sealed orders denying both ex parte motions without prejudice pending completion of the government's case in chief. The district court did not further explain the basis for its denial. On May 14, the day trial was scheduled to start, Santiago-Torres filed a motion again requesting funds to retain a voice identification expert and a continuance to ensure the expert's availability for trial. The court orally denied the motion. At trial, audio recordings of the February 16 purchase by government witness Colón-González and the April 12 and May 4 purchases by government witness Ortiz-Cruz were admitted into evidence over defense counsel's objections. As an indigent, Santiago-Torres was entitled to the benefits of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA), 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. The CJA provides that a person who is financially unable to obtain ... expert ... services necessary for an adequate defense may obtain them after demonstrating in an ex parte hearing that such services are necessary. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1). Generally, expert services have been found necessary when the proffered expert testimony was pivotal to the indigent defendant's defense. United States v. Manning, 79 F.3d 212, 218 (1st Cir.1996). For example, courts have appointed a fingerprint expert when a fingerprint, alleged to be the defendant's, was the primary means of connecting the defendant to the crime, and a psychiatrist when the defendant's sanity at the time of the offense was at issue. Id. (internal citations omitted). We discern no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Santiago-Torres's ex parte motion for funds to retain a voice identification expert, or his related motion for a continuance to secure that expert's presence at trial. Santiago-Torres's proffered expert testimony was not pivotal to his defense. The audio recordings were not the primary means of connecting [Santiago-Torres] to the crime, see id., but instead merely served as corroboration for the ample eyewitness testimony that Santiago-Torres had acted as a runner and seller for the drug point. Colón-González testified that she had known Santiago-Torres for three years, and had seen him acting as the runner at the drug point and selling drugs to others behind her house. She further testified that during the February 16 controlled transaction, the seller, Martínez, called Santiago-Torres to see whether he had any additional drugs, and Santiago-Torres brought her two more packages of cocaine base later that day. Ortiz-Cruz testified that he had known Santiago-Torres for more than fifteen years, and had sold drugs at Correa-Alicea's drug point in late 2005, during which time Santiago-Torres also worked as a drug runner and seller. Ortiz-Cruz also testified that he purchased cocaine base directly from Santiago-Torres in the May 4 controlled transaction. In light of this eyewitness testimony, none of which depended on identification of Santiago-Torres's voice on the audio recordings, the voice identification expert services were not critical or necessary to his defense. Moreover, as the district court noted, Santiago-Torres's counsel had the opportunity to listen to the audio recordings at issue on March 6, but did not request a continuance until April 30 and did not request funds to retain a voice identification expert until May 1, less than two weeks before his trial was scheduled to begin. Santiago-Torres contends on appeal, as he did in his motion to the district court, that his requests were delayed because he spent weeks trying to locate a voice identification expert available to come to Puerto Rico. However, he does not explain why he could not have made his requests for expert services and for a continuance prior to locating an available expert, and the district court could reasonably have found that the requests were unreasonably dilatory. In light of these facts, we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion in denying Santiago-Torres's requests for a continuance and for funds to retain the proffered expert. Santiago-Torres further contends that the district court erred in disclosing his ex parte request for a voice identification expert in its May 3, 2007 denial of his motion for a continuance. The government correctly concedes error on this point. See United States v. Abreu, 202 F.3d 386, 391 (1st Cir.2000) (holding that district court erred in not handling entire application for expert services under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1) on an ex parte basis, and explaining that the manifest purpose of requiring that the inquiry be ex parte is to insure that the defendant will not have to make a premature disclosure of his case (internal quotation marks omitted)). However, voice identification was not pivotal to Santiago-Torres's defense. Even absent the audio recordings, the government presented overwhelming evidence of his guilt. Therefore, we find that the court's error in not handling his expert request on an ex parte basis was harmless.