Opinion ID: 201767
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Challenged Testimony

Text: 33 Before trial, Pinillos moved in limine to exclude expert testimony regarding the topic of coded references to drugs and drug trafficking, on the ground that the government had not complied with its obligation to disclose expert testimony under Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(E) (2002). 8 The government explained that it planned to ask both Toro and Rafa to testify about the use of code phrases in drug deals, and suggested that this was lay opinion testimony. The district court denied Pinillos's motion, but held that the proposed testimony would be regarded as expert testimony and ordered the government to disclose any information that is relevant to qualifying [a witness] as an expert to testify as to the meaning of drug related or coded drug phrases. 34 Despite the pretrial wrangling, the government never actually moved to qualify Toro as an expert witness. Instead, early in its direct examination, after eliciting Toro's background and experience, it began asking general questions about the nature of drug organizations and, in particular, their violent nature. (No questions had yet been asked concerning code words.) 35 The first substantive question that the government asked of Toro was, What is your experience with how drug organizations operate as far as how do they maintain control of drugs or the guns ? (Emphasis added). After a defense 9 objection, the government rephrased the question without reference to guns, and Toro answered that drug organizations had members who are engaged in safekeeping and protecting the drugs. The government then asked, And how do they protect the drugs? Over a defense objection, Toro was permitted to answer that the drugs are kept in a hidden place where they are protected with firearms. 10 36 Testimony about the dangerous nature of drug organizations recurred later in Toro's direct examination, when he opined as to why the leader of a drug organization would not be physically present for the actual handoff: 37 The most crucial and dangerous moment during the work of an undercover agent and everyone engaged in drug business is that time when the drugs and the money are handed over. Based on my experience, this is the point in time when any of the people involved, for any reason at that point in time, may lose his or her life. 38 Defendants objected on the ground that the testimony was inflammatory; the objection was overruled. 39 When discussing the meeting at the España Bakery, the government asked Toro whether, in his experience, drug traffickers bring innocent people to negotiations for the sale of drugs. Toro answered that they do not. The following discussion ensued: 40 Q. Why would you not bring in innocent people? 41 A. Because it could cause the life of that innocent person, to be in a drug transaction. 42 MS. PLAZA: Objection, Your Honor. 43 THE COURT: Overruled. 44 . . . 45 Q. So when these drug deals happen, is it dangerous? 46 MS. PLAZA: Objection. 47 MS. LIZARRIBAR: Objection. 48 THE COURT: Overruled. 49 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. BY MR. SCHULTE: 50 Q. Why is it dangerous? 51 A. Because when you are involved in a drug transaction, you have drugs and money involved. No one wants to have their drugs stolen; no one wants to have their money stolen, and that's practically [sic] when there is large amounts of money involved and large amounts of drugs involved. 52 Later, when discussing the second meeting at the Plaza Carolina, Toro explained that if he had not demanded to see the money, it could look as though we were cops and things could get dangerous. The prosecutor asked for clarification, and Toro explained: 53 In a drug transaction where you have agents — law enforcement agents from Puerto Rico and people who are engaged in drug trafficking, should these people become aware that we are agents, as has happened, it could cost us our lives. 54 The defense objected as to what has happened in other cases, and the court sustained that objection, allowing into evidence, in the court's words, that if these people find out that they are law enforcement, it could cost their lives. 55 The final contested statements came during Toro's explanation as to why he felt insecure and unsure in the car with Pinillos at the delivery site. Toro explained that at that time he didn't know if Campusano and Pinillos were with other people. The government asked for clarification as follows: 56 Q. What do you mean with other people? 57 A. Maybe they were accompanied by other members of their organization which could place — 58 MS. PLAZA: Objection, Your Honor. 59 THE COURT: Overruled. 60 THE WITNESS: — which could place at stake both the informant's life and my life.