Opinion ID: 866145
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Lay vs. Expert Opinion

Text: Díaz-Arias' fourth challenge is that the district court erred in allowing Trooper Cepero's voice identification testimony as it did not comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which governs the admission of expert witness testimony. Specifically, he complains that the government attempted to portray Trooper Cepero as an expert in voice identification, by having him testify about his fluency in the Spanish language and his familiarity with the accents of Spanish speakers from the Dominican Republic. However, apart from this impression, Díaz-Arias makes no attempt to explain how the trooper's familiarity with the Spanish language constituted the type of specialized knowledge and heightened sophistication normally associated with expert testimony. United States v. Espinal-Almeida, 699 F.3d 588, 614 (1st Cir. 2012) (ellipsis -21- omitted). Neither does he elaborate on how the methods used by Trooper Cepero in making the voice comparison were unreliable or how he was prejudiced by the district court's decision to allow the testimony as lay, instead of expert, opinion. See United States v. Hilario-Hilario, 529 F.3d 65, 72 (1st Cir. 2008)(to succeed in obtaining a reversal on appeal, a defendant must prove both an abuse of discretion and prejudice.) (citing United States v. Álvarez, 987 F.2d 77, 85 (1st Cir. 1993), cert denied, 510 U.S. 849 (1993)). In addition, these arguments are irrelevant to the issues presented by Trooper Cepero's testimony identifying Díaz-Arias as the speaker in question. During cross-examination, Trooper Cepero clearly admitted that he was not an expert in voice identification, and stated that the jury had as much expertise as he did in voice recognition. Further, at the close of evidence, the district court reminded the jurors that they were not obligated to accept his testimony, and that they could disregard it if they concluded it was unreliable or inadequately supported. As a result, we cannot conclude that the jurors were misled into thinking that Trooper Cepero was an expert witness and that they needed to accord any undue deference to his testimony. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion here. -22-