Opinion ID: 781605
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Specifying the Illegal Drugs Involved

Text: 16 Griffin argues that an expert on the meaning of code words is barred by Rule 704(b) from stating conclusions about the precise controlled substances referred to in intercepted conversations. Rule 704(b) states, 17 No expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of a defendant in a criminal case may state an opinion or inference as to whether the defendant did or did not have the mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged or a defense thereto. Such ultimate issues are matters for the trier of fact alone. 18 Fed.R.Evid. 704(b). Griffin is correct that this court has expressed discomfort about uncontrolled expert testimony that provides sweeping conclusions. See United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294, 1308 (2d Cir.1987); United States v. Brown, 776 F.2d 397, 401 (2d Cir.1985). However, we have permitted experts to testify specifically about which drugs were involved in a case. Simmons, 923 F.2d at 946-47 n. 5 (distinguishing Nersesian, 824 F.2d at 1307-09). Rule 704(b) applies to questions of mental state, and does not restrict conclusions about facts, such as opinion evidence identifying subjects of a conversation. In Simmons, we concluded that the witness's interpretation of drug terminology, including specification of certain drugs, did not violate Rule 704(b) because it left to the jury the task of determining whether the decoded terms demonstrated the necessary criminal intent. Id. at 947. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err by allowing Biggs to testify that code words referred to specific drugs.