Opinion ID: 4556811
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Dual-Role Testimony

Text: The Federal Rules of Evidence generally require witnesses to testify based on personal knowledge. See Fed. R. Evid. 602. They permit only two types of opinion testimony. A lay witness may offer opinion testimony if it is “rationally based on the witness’s perception,” “helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue,” and “not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.” Fed. R. Evid. 701. And an expert witness may offer opinion testimony if “the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue,” “the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data,” “the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods,” and “the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. -4- Investigating officers are sometimes in a position to provide both forms of permissible opinion testimony. As lay witnesses, they may offer testimony that is rationally based on their perceptions during the investigation. See Fed. R. Evid. 701. And as expert witnesses, they may offer opinion testimony that is based on specialized knowledge gained from training and experience. See Fed. R. Evid. 702. We have not “categorically prohibited” dual-role testimony by case agents when the prosecution needs to make use of the expertise of a case agent providing lay testimony. See United States v. Moralez, 808 F.3d 362, 366 (8th Cir. 2015). However, we have identified “several risks associated with dual-role testimony,” including that: (1) the witness’s aura of credibility as an expert may inflate the credibility of her perception as a fact witness in the eyes of the jury; (2) opposing counsel is limited in cross-examining the witness due to the risk that an unsuccessful attempt to impeach her expertise will collaterally bolster the credibility of her fact testimony; (3) the witness may stray between roles, moving from the application of reliable methodologies into sweeping conclusions, thus violating the strictures of Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702; (4) jurors may find it difficult to segregate these roles when weighing testimony and assessing the witness’s credibility; and (5) because experts may rely on and disclose hearsay for the purpose of explaining the basis of an expert opinion, there is a risk the witness may relay hearsay when switching to fact testimony. Id. at 365 (citing United States v. Dukagjini, 326 F.3d 45, 53–54, 56–59 (2d Cir. 2003)). -5- “Ideally, the lay and expert testimony would be provided by separate witnesses.” Id. at 366. When this is not possible, “district courts and counsel should take appropriate measures to minimize the problems that may arise from dual-role testimony by a case agent.” Id. One measure that is often appropriate is “bifurcating the questioning,” but other measures may also be appropriate so long as “the questioning and jury instructions sufficiently guard[] against the risks” associated with dual-role testimony. Id. A. The Admission of Officer Girskis’s Dual-Role Testimony It is well-established that the district court “may allow law enforcement officers to testify as experts about drug-related activities unfamiliar to most jurors,” including “jargon used in the drug trade.” United States v. Lowe, 9 F.3d 43, 47 (8th Cir. 1993) (cleaned up). However, the officer’s testimony should not “go beyond the plain meaning of the recorded conversations.” United States v. Delpit, 94 F.3d 1134, 1145 (8th Cir. 1996) (cleaned up). The officer’s expert testimony may be inadmissible when it pertains to ordinary language and “jurors can make a common sense determination of the evidence without the technical aid of an expert.” See United States v. Rodebaugh, 561 F.3d 864, 868 (8th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Johnson v. United States, 558 U.S. 1144 (2010). The officer’s testimony also may not rely “merely upon the hearsay testimony of non-witness drug dealers.” United States v. Avalos, 817 F.3d 597, 601 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Placensia, 352 F.3d 1157, 1165 (8th Cir. 2003)). We review the district court’s ruling on a motion in limine, and its admission of expert testimony, for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Fincher, 538 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir. 2008) (motions in limine); Avalos, 817 F.3d at 601 (expert testimony). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “relevant factor that should have been given significant weight is not considered; when an irrelevant or improper factor is considered and given significant weight; or when all proper factors, and no -6- improper ones, are considered, but the court, in weighing those factors, commits a clear error of judgment.” Moralez, 808 F.3d at 365 (cleaned up). In its pretrial motion in limine, defense counsel argued that Officer Girskis’s anticipated testimony would “exceed the bounds of acceptable expert testimony” because it “goes beyond interpreting code words and instead summarizes Officer Girskis’s beliefs regarding the meaning of the conversations based on his knowledge of the case [as a case agent].” Defense counsel asserted that “Officer Girskis should be limited to interpreting individual code words. He should not be allowed to provide an overall conclusion or interpretation of the meaning of conversations.” The motion specifically requested “that the Court direct the Government to clearly distinguish between when Officer Girskis is testifying as an expert and when he is testifying as an investigator.” The district court denied the motion, noting that defense counsel had not challenged Officer Girskis’s qualifications to testify as an expert and that “the anticipated testimony and the method of the experience-based testimony interpreting these cryptic phone calls is consistent with accepted expert testimony in drug trafficking cases.” To the extent the dual-role testimony raised “concerns as to confusion or otherwise,” the court stated that it would give an expert-testimony instruction and anticipated that the government would “present the testimony in terms of the lay witness testimony and the expert testimony in a concise and differentiated way so that there’s no confusion on the basis for the witness’ testimony.” We perceive no abuse of discretion in this pretrial ruling. We have not categorically prohibited dual-role testimony, and when that testimony is presented in a “concise and differentiated way so that there’s no confusion,” it may be admissible.2 2 In its motion, the defense suggested that Officer Girskis’s “factual testimony should be segregated from his expert testimony.” In denying the motion, the district -7- The problem is that the testimony at trial was not presented in a concise and differentiated fashion. Portions of Officer Girskis’s testimony translated specific pieces of drug code and slang terminology. For example, he testified that “plug” meant “source”; “scratch” meant “money”; “65 ag” meant “$65 a gram”; and “little babies” meant “heroin.” A properly qualified expert may testify about this type of coded language to help the jury understand the world of drug trafficking, as the terms may otherwise seem “nonsensical” to them. Avalos, 817 F.3d at 601. As the district court noted, Overton did not object to Girskis’s qualifications as an expert in drug trafficking, and his motion in limine requested that Girskis’s expert testimony be limited to testimony of this type. Other portions of Officer Girskis’s testimony, however, purported to translate non-coded English language and went beyond simply interpreting the words at issue. For instance, Officer Girskis testified that “[t]his is the number that I am at” meant “this is the number I currently have, I will be calling from this number when I need more heroin.” He also testified that “[a]bout to get that paper like that” meant “about to get all the paper from the heroin I’ve sold.” And he explained that “[t]his is just goin[g] crazy. It’s been a lot and lot, going on” meant “[a] lot of people are getting heroin, he’s selling this heroin, people are crazy about it, and lots going on like he’s going to need some more.” This pattern of partially translating slang terminology, partially translating ordinary English words, and partially providing opinions about court relied on United States v. Moreland, 703 F.3d 976, 983–84 (7th Cir. 2012), which suggested that it is not necessary to separate this testimony. We note that the Seventh Circuit has since “clarif[ied]” its opinion in Moreland and instructed that “[w]hen a district judge learns that the government intends to put on dual-role testimony from a case agent, it should first encourage the government to present the expert and lay testimony separately. ‘Seamlessly switching back-and-forth between expert and fact testimony does little to stem the risks associated with dual-role witnesses.’” United States v. Jett, 908 F.3d 252, 269 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Jones, 763 F.3d 777, 803 (7th Cir. 2014)). -8- the conversations that went beyond the words themselves, was repeated throughout Officer Girskis’s testimony. This mixed testimony was presented to the jury in an undifferentiated form. To the extent Officer Girskis’s opinions were based on his personal perceptions as an investigator on the case, rather than on his expert training and experience, this was never communicated to the jury, and Officer Girskis did not testify about any personal perceptions on which his testimony was based. As a result, there was no way for the jury or counsel—or now, us—to know whether the portions of Officer Girskis’s testimony that went beyond the specific code words at issue were based on personal perceptions or whether they were impermissibly based on hearsay statements. See Avalos, 817 F.3d at 601 (“In cases involving coded drug phrases, [Rule 702] requires that the expert base her opinion on personal experience and training and not merely upon hearsay testimony of non-witness drug dealers.” (cleaned up)). The manner in which Officer Girskis’s testimony was presented highlights the potential problems with offering this type of dual-role testimony. Testimony about the meaning of drug-code jargon, if based on experience and training, is permissible expert testimony. But Girskis’s testimony “about the meaning of conversations in general, beyond the interpretation of code words” is an example of “how an expert on drug code can stray from the scope of his expertise.” Dukagjini, 326 F.3d at 55. And the jury was not given the necessary information to distinguish between the lay and expert testimony. See Moralez, 808 F.3d at 366. We conclude that, while portions of Officer Girskis’s testimony constituted admissible expert testimony, other portions did not. Dual-role testimony in a case like this is “not categorically prohibited,” but “district courts and counsel should take appropriate measures to minimize the problems that may arise from dual-role testimony by a case agent.” Id. In this case, those problems were not sufficiently minimized. -9- B. Harmless Error We must next consider whether this error was harmless. “An evidentiary error is harmless when, after reviewing the entire record, this court determines that the substantial rights of the defendant were unaffected, and that the error did not influence or had only a slight influence on the verdict.” United States v. DeMarce, 564 F.3d 989, 997 (8th Cir. 2009). “Improper admission of evidence which is cumulative of matters shown by admissible evidence is harmless error.” Wilson v. City of Des Moines, 442 F.3d 637, 644 (8th Cir. 2006). We conclude that Officer Girskis’s improper testimony did not have more than a slight influence on the jury’s verdict. Much of the testimony was cumulative of matters shown by other evidence at trial. The text message and recorded calls were properly admitted, and other witnesses shed light on their meaning. Smith testified that “little baby” and “white boy” meant “heroin”; that “I need you to come through” meant “I need a gram of heroin”; that “plug” meant “source”; and that $65 a gram was a wholesale price for heroin. Officer Scott testified, without objection, that in one of the calls “Overton [was] speaking to his nephew, Kearnice” and “telling Kearnice . . . that he sold the heroin that he had and he can’t get in touch with Khiemonte Smith and he needed more.” Smith also provided extensive testimony about Overton’s role in the conspiracy. Smith explained that the organization was not selling heroin before Overton came to town and that Overton “had business with more connects and . . . clientele with the heroin”; that Kearnice purchased the heroin and provided it to Smith, who in turn provided it to Overton; that Smith gave Overton a small quantity at a time because he previously “ran off” with some of the heroin; that Smith frequently delivered the heroin to Overton at an apartment complex called Spencer Towers; that Overton was present on at least one occasion when Kearnice was packaging the heroin; and that Overton sold the heroin to others. Lacey Schram -10- testified that she purchased heroin from Overton on about three occasions, including once at Spencer Towers. And Nicole Oaks testified that she purchased heroin from Overton “[a] lot of times,” often at Spencer Towers. In light of the text message, recorded telephone calls, properly admitted testimony interpreting these communications, extensive co-conspirator testimony, and testimony from customers, we conclude that the evidentiary error was harmless. See Delpit, 94 F.3d at 1145 (finding that an officer’s expert testimony was improper to the extent it went “beyond the plain meaning of the recorded conversations,” but affirming because the error was harmless (cleaned up)).