Opinion ID: 4553375
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Agent Schuster’s Expert Testimony

Text: Over the defendants’ objections, the district court granted the government’s motion to introduce expert testimony from Special Agent Scott Schuster. The court explained that Schuster had taken time to develop his understanding of the Bandidos through years of investigation and conversations with insiders and outsiders, demonstrating that his understanding of the group was “far above that of the general public.” Before bringing the jury back to the courtroom, however, the court placed limitations on Schuster’s testimony. The court warned the government that Schuster would not be “allowed to give any direct opinion about the guilt or innocence . . . of any defendant in this case.” If Schuster veered across that line, the court warned the government that there would be grounds to declare a mistrial. At trial, Schuster testified about the organizational structure of the Bandidos and the roles of each national officer. After the verdict was announced, the defendants moved for a new trial on the basis of Schuster’s testimony, and the district court denied the motion. 23 Case: 18-50793 Document: 00515516125 Page: 24 Date Filed: 08/05/2020 No. 18-50793 Pike and Portillo both argue that the district court abused its discretion in admitting expert testimony from Schuster. They argue that (1) Schuster was not qualified to testify as an expert; (2) Schuster impermissibly restated inadmissible hearsay; and (3) Schuster violated Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) by testifying to the specific mental state of the defendants. First, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it held that Schuster was qualified to testify as an expert. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, a witness “who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” may testify as long as (1) his “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge . . . will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue”; (2) “the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data”; (3) “the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods”; and (4) “he has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” During voir dire, Schuster explained that he developed his knowledge of the Bandidos over twelve years as an FBI special agent, including eight years working on a task force investigating gangs and at least five years investigating the Bandidos in particular. His knowledge was based on interviews with current and former Bandidos members, document review, and collaboration with confidential informants. We have previously approved the qualifications of experts who use their investigative training to testify about organized criminal enterprises like the Bandidos. In United States v. Washington, 44 F.3d 1271, 1283 (5th Cir. 1995), we affirmed the qualifications of two government agents who testified as experts about “the significance of certain conduct or methods of operation unique to the drug distribution business.” Other circuits have similarly affirmed the qualifications of experts who use their law enforcement training to gain an understanding of insular criminal groups. See, e.g., United States v. Rios, 830 F.3d 403, 413 (6th Cir. 2016); United States v. Mejia, 545 F.3d 179, 24 Case: 18-50793 Document: 00515516125 Page: 25 Date Filed: 08/05/2020 No. 18-50793 194 (2d Cir. 2008). These cases clarify that a law enforcement expert does not need “scientific” knowledge in order to be qualified as an expert; instead, “other types of specialized knowledge,” including an investigative background, are often far more applicable in the context of a criminal organization. Rios, 830 F.3d at 413. Schuster’s knowledge about the Bandidos was informed by years of on-the-ground investigative training. This training made Schuster’s testimony reliable and sufficiently supported to be admissible at trial. See id. at 414; United States v. Tocco, 200 F.3d 401, 419 (6th Cir. 2000). Likewise, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Schuster’s testimony would be helpful to the jury. In Washington, we held that the testimony of an “experienced narcotics agent” regarding “the significance of certain conduct or methods of operation unique to the drug distribution business” would be “helpful in assisting the trier of fact understand the evidence.” 44 F.3d at 1283. Schuster’s law enforcement expertise allowed him to “impart[] evidence regarding the inner-workings of organized crime, which has been held to be a proper subject of expert opinion.” Rios, 830 F.3d at 413 (cleaned up). Other courts have similarly allowed law enforcement experts to testify about the structure of a criminal enterprise, including an insular group’s insignia, history, culture, and organizational hierarchy. See id. at 413– 14 (observing that “an FBI agent in a case about organized crime may properly give expert testimony on the structure, organization, and the rules of the organized-crime entity” (cleaned up)); United States v. Kamahele, 748 F.3d 984, 998 (10th Cir. 2014); United States v. Van Dorn, 925 F.2d 1331, 1338–39 (11th Cir. 1991). Pike argues that Schuster impermissibly testified about easily verified facts—an area courts have declared off-limits for expert witnesses. See Mejia, 545 F.3d at 190 (“An increasingly thinning line separates the legitimate use of an officer expert to . . . explicate an organization’s hierarchical structure from 25 Case: 18-50793 Document: 00515516125 Page: 26 Date Filed: 08/05/2020 No. 18-50793 the illegitimate and impermissible substitution of expert opinion for factual evidence.”); see also United States v. Haines, 803 F.3d 713, 731 (5th Cir. 2015) (observing that the “aura of special reliability” given to experts creates a risk that the jury might place “undue weight” on the expert’s testimony based on the “perception that the officer was privy to facts not presented at trial” (citation omitted)). Pike notes that Schuster testified about specific historical crimes committed by Bandidos, and argues that this testimony was factspecific and not helpful to the jury. As the government argues, however, Schuster did not speak about “purely factual matters establishing the elements of the charged crime.” See Mejia, 545 F.3d at 194–96 (holding that certain expert testimony about the defendant’s alleged crimes was unhelpful because it was “well within the grasp of the average juror”). Moreover, Schuster was not the case agent who investigated Pike and Portillo, thus minimizing any prejudice potentially caused by his testimony. See Haines, 803 F.3d at 730–31; United States v. Sykes, 277 F. App’x 397, 398 (5th Cir. 2008) (dismissing claim that expert erroneously testified as both an expert and fact witness where there was no evidence that the “theoretical concerns” about a witness’s dual roles prejudiced the defendants). Second, Schuster did not impermissibly reveal hearsay during the course of his testimony. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 703, an expert can base his opinion on otherwise inadmissible facts and data, including hearsay, as long as these sources are “reasonably rel[ied] on” by experts in the field. Here, Schuster’s reliance on hearsay evidence, including statements made by Bandidos members in interviews and intercepted phone calls, is “consistent with the ordinary practices of law enforcement officers, who routinely and reasonably rely upon hearsay in reaching their conclusions.” Mejia, 545 F.3d at 197 (cleaned up). Schuster used his expertise to synthesize “various source 26 Case: 18-50793 Document: 00515516125 Page: 27 Date Filed: 08/05/2020 No. 18-50793 materials,” rather than simply regurgitating information he learned from those sources. See id. For the same reason, Portillo’s Confrontation Clause argument also fails. Portillo did not object to Schuster’s testimony on this basis, so we review this claim for plain error only. Portillo does not identify any “testimonial statements within the meaning of Crawford v. Washington, [541 U.S. 36 (2004),] or any impermissible hearsay at all, relayed by [Schuster’s] testimony.” United States v. Akins, 746 F.3d 590, 603 (5th Cir. 2014). As long as an expert forms his opinion by “amalgamating . . . potentially testimonial statements,” his testimony does not violate the Confrontation Clause. Rios, 830 F.3d at 418 (emphasis added); see also Akins, 746 F.3d at 603. Finally, the defendants argue that Schuster’s testimony impermissibly opined on their mental states. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b), an expert witness in a criminal case “must not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense.” We have interpreted Rule 704(b) narrowly, explaining that it only prohibits statements that “directly opine[] on the ultimate issue of [a defendant’s] mental state.” United States v. Dvorin, 817 F.3d 438, 448 (5th Cir. 2016) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Speer, 30 F.3d 605, 610 (5th Cir. 1994) (“Rule 704(b) is not strictly construed and prohibits only a direct statement of the defendant’s intent.”); 29 Charles Alan Wright & Victor James Gold, Federal Practice & Procedure § 6285, at 395 (1997) (“Rule 704(b) usually bars only a direct statement that defendant did or did not have the required mental state.”). Pike argues that Schuster violated Rule 704(b) when he testified about the typical characteristics of the Bandidos President. According to Pike, this testimony was impermissible because it communicated the opinion that Pike “must have known of and participated in the charged offenses.” He relies upon 27 Case: 18-50793 Document: 00515516125 Page: 28 Date Filed: 08/05/2020 No. 18-50793 our opinion in United States v. Gutierrez-Farias, 294 F.3d 657, 663 (5th Cir. 2002), where we held that a district court abused its discretion when it permitted expert testimony about the knowledge typically possessed by drug couriers. We explained that this testimony crossed the “borderline long recognized . . . between a mere explanation of the expert’s analysis of the facts and a forbidden opinion on the ultimate legal issue in the case.” Id. (cleaned up). Pike argues that Schuster’s testimony veered across this line because it suggested that Pike, as President of the Bandidos, necessarily had knowledge of the activities of all of the club’s members. However, he fails to identify any testimony from Schuster that “directly opined on the ultimate issue” of Pike’s mental state. Dvorin, 817 F.3d at 448. In a similar context, we have held that expert testimony about the typical mental state shared by individuals in a specific criminal role does not violate the Rule 704(b) bar. See United States v. Morin, 627 F.3d 985, 996 (5th Cir. 2010). Even if it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to admit this or any other part of Schuster’s testimony, any error was harmless. Under the harmless error doctrine, “judgment will be affirmed . . . unless the error affected a substantial right of the defendant.” United States v. Valencia, 600 F.3d 389, 423 (5th Cir. 2010). “An error affects substantial rights if there is a reasonable probability that the improperly admitted evidence contributed to the conviction.” United States v. Sumlin, 489 F.3d 683, 688 (5th Cir. 2007). The government bears the burden of establishing that the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Ebron, 683 F.3d 105, 131 (5th Cir. 2012). An “error is harmless if, in light of the whole record, the contested evidence did not contribute to the verdict.” United States v. Dixon, 185 F.3d 393, 398 (5th Cir. 1999). Here, several other witnesses independently confirmed many statements made by Schuster about the authority of the President, the history of the 28 Case: 18-50793 Document: 00515516125 Page: 29 Date Filed: 08/05/2020 No. 18-50793 Bandidos, and the group’s organizational structure and operations. We have explained that an error can be harmless when the improperly admitted evidence merely duplicates other evidence in the record. See Akins, 746 F.3d at 600 (“To the extent that certain portions of [the expert’s] testimony at times crossed the line . . . it was cumulative of other testimony and therefore harmless.”); United States v. El-Mezain, 664 F.3d 467, 513 (5th Cir. 2011); Krout, 66 F.3d at 1433. Likewise, any erroneously admitted testimony “constituted only a small portion of an otherwise strong case.” GutierrezFarias, 294 F.3d at 663. The government introduced substantial evidence of guilt, further supporting the conclusion that any error was harmless. See Washington, 44 F.3d at 1283 (holding that an error is harmless if there is “overwhelming evidence establishing [the defendant’s] guilt”). Against this backdrop, any errors in the admission of Schuster’s testimony did not impact the defendants’ substantial rights, and we therefore affirm.