First Circuit
Case: United States v. Galindo-Serrano, No. 16-2505, 2019 WL 2295463, at *7 (1st Cir. May 30, 2019)
Type of Case: Criminal
Charges/Counts: Carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2119(1) and (2); use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); carjacking “resulting in serious bodily injury, that is: sexual assault,” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(2); use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
Rule(s) of Evidence Cited
- FRE 901(a)
Holding: The First Circuit upheld the district court’s exclusion of a photograph.
At trial, the defendant attempted to ask a witness whether she recognized a digital photograph of a person. According to the First Circuit, defense counsel proposed to authenticate the photograph by “turn[ing] the computer on and show[ing] [the photograph] to [the Court] on Facebook.” The First Circuit upheld the district court’s exclusion of the photograph. The Court wrote: “Defense counsel did not — during his initial offer or in his subsequent untimely proffer — point to any evidence that was ‘extrinsic to the document or item itself’ or to ‘elements of the document itself,’ which would provide ‘enough support … to warrant a reasonable person in determining that the evidence is what it purports to be.’”
Eighth Circuit
Case: United States v. Torrez, No. 17-3743, 2019 WL 2307929, at *1 (8th Cir. May 31, 2019)
Type of Case: Criminal
Charges/Counts: (1) Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing methamphetamine; (2) murder in furtherance of a drug trafficking conspiracy; (3) causing death by use of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime; and (4) obstruction of justice.
Rule(s) of Evidence Cited
- FRE 404(b)(1)
Holding: The Eighth Circuit upheld the district court’s admission of prior references to the defendant’s criminal past.
By way of background, multiple witnesses alluded to the defendant’s criminal past. First, “[government witness #1] testified that he started dealing drugs again because of a debt he owed to [the defendant] from an older drug transaction. Second, [government witness #2] testified that [government witness #1] had told her he ‘had gotten a good opportunity from somebody that just got out of prison,’ referring to [the defendant]. Third, [the defendant’s brother] testified that he worked with [government witness #1] on meth deals because [the defendant] was at a halfway house in Fargo and could not participate directly.”
The Eighth Circuit wrote: “Assuming that any of these references to [the defendant’s] past involvement with drugs triggered Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1), they were permissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2). The first two statements only clarify [the defendant’s] motive for working with [government witness #1]. The third statement concerns [the defendant’s] motive for involving [his brother] in the relevant drug transactions.”
- FRE 801(d)(2)(E)
Holding: The Eighth Circuit upheld the district court’s admission of a declarant’s out-of-court statements under the co-conspirator exclusion to the rule against hearsay.
By way of background, the government sought to offer the out-of-court statements of the declarant, who had accompanied the defendant during the alleged drug dealing. The declarant’s out-of-court statement “occurred on the night of [the victim’s] murder when, before she and [the defendant] went to meet up with others, [the declarant] called her ex-boyfriend and asked him to come join them ‘for her protection’ and to bring his gun.” The defendant argued that the declarant was not a co-conspirator.
The Eighth Circuit wrote: “[The declarant’s] request to her ex-boyfriend would also be in furtherance of the drug trafficking conspiracy because she wanted protection while helping [the defendant] with his dealers and their customers. On this record, the district court’s finding that [the declarant] was a co-conspirator was neither an abuse of discretion nor clear error.”
Case: United States v. McDaniel, No. 18-1477, 2019 WL 2292205, at *1 (8th Cir. May 30, 2019)
Type of Case: Criminal
Charges/Counts: Possession with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), (b)(1)(D) and 851; possession of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and (C)(i); and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1).
Rule(s) of Evidence Cited
- FRE 702
Holding: The Eighth Circuit upheld the district court’s admission of expert testimony from a police officer about the “tools of the trade” for drug dealers and whether particular packaging indicated that drugs were intended for sale.
By way of background, the defendant argued that the district court “improperly relied on [the police officer’s] testimony because it lacked ‘scientific method.’” In response, the Eighth Circuit wrote: “Federal Rule of Evidence 702 does not require this. Rather, it allows testimony from ‘[a] witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education’ 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.’ Fed. R. Evid. 702(a). [The police officer] had knowledge, skill, experience, and training sufficient to qualify him as an expert in drug trafficking.”
