Opinion ID: 198362
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony by IRS Special Agent Youngquist

Text: 64 Gaines assigns error to certain opinion testimony by Special Agent Lauren Youngquist of the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS. The government called Special Agent Youngquist to testify regarding her investigation of Gaines's finances in 1996. While she testified that she had been a special agent for over nine years and had participated in 75 narcotics cases for the IRS, she was never tendered as an expert witness, and the court never expressly qualified her as such. Agent Youngquist described her duties as assisting investigations, interviewing witnesses, and looking at evidence. In this case, she testified to comparisons between Gaines's income tax records and the funds he expended. Her investigation revealed that Gaines's rent at the Brookley address was $800 per month, which he always paid in cash, excepting one payment via a money order. She discovered that Gaines paid $175 cash for the apartment's alarm system and approximately $8,000 cash for the audio/video system found in the apartment, and that approximately $7,500 in cash was found in the apartment. 65 Agent Youngquist then testified that she considered Gaines's use of cash significant because it was consistent with drug dealing and very difficult to trace. While defense counsel objected to this testimony, he offered no specific grounds for the objection. 66 Gaines argues on appeal that it was prejudicial to allow Agent Youngquist's testimony that using cash is consistent with drug dealing, both because the testimony lacked helpfulness to the jury and because of the grave danger of prejudice inherent in such testimony. Gaines also states in his brief that Agent Youngquist lacked the experience to render such an opinion, but declares he does not now pursue that point because he made no objection at trial concerning her lack of qualifications. 67 We have discussed the use of expert testimony regarding the operation of criminal schemes and activities in United States v. Montas, 41 F.3d 775, 781-84 (1st Cir.1994). As we said there, such testimony can be helpful to juries in understanding some obscure or complex aspect of the crime. Id. at 783. Expert testimony is not admissible, however, on matters that [are] readily intelligible and may, in some cases, create unfair prejudice by appearing to put the expert's stamp of approval on the government's case. Id. at 784. 68 We think that whether or not, in general, cash is used in, and is consistent with, drug-dealing is a dubious subject, at least in an ordinary case, for expert opinion testimony. As the Second Circuit has stated, it has a common sense aspect to it that makes its admission more troubling. United States v. Tapia-Ortiz, 23 F.3d 738, 741 (2d Cir.1994). It is hard to see here why the jury needed Agent Youngquist's generalization given her detailed testimony regarding Gaines's tax records and his various cash purchases, all of which clearly highlighted the issue of the sources of his cash and whether or not drug dealing was the likely explanation. Compare id. at 741-42 (expert testimony upheld identifying beepers, cash, and nicknames as drug trafficking techniques when introduced to rebut defense claims that defendants' activities did not suggest criminal conduct). 69 Had the defense objected on the express ground that this testimony was not a proper subject of expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or was unfairly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, it might well have been error for the court to have allowed Agent Youngquist to respond as she did. But as occurred in Montas, defendant objected but stated no grounds. We accordingly review for plain error only. Id. For much the same reasons stated in Montas, any error that occurred fell short of being plain. See id. Indeed, the questions asked and answered seem less potentially prejudicial than those in Montas. The claimed interrelationship between the drug transactions ascribed to Gaines and his use of significant cash sums were issues already fully on the table. That cash might be used because it is difficult to trace, and that cash was consistent with drug dealing, could hardly have been very novel or startling ideas to this jury. 70