Cases Dealing with Expert Testimony in Drug Cases

The courts have addressed officers testifying as experts in drug cases quite often.  The narcotics trade is by its nature an operation veiled in secrecy with every effort made to evade detection.  As such, when a prosecutor is attempting to prove a drug case, especially a complex case, the expertise of the officer can be very helpful to the jury.  The following are a series of quotes along those lines.

Legal Supplement

 U.S. v. Brumley, 217 F.3d 905, 901-11 (7th Cir. 2000),

“based on observation, that packaged quantity was a dealer, not a user of methamphetamine”

 U.S. v. Navarro, 90 F.3d 1245, 1260 (7th Cir. 1996),

“that baggies, with corners cut, were a way of packaging drugs”

 U.S. v. Webb, 115 F.3d 711, 713-14 (9th Cir. 1997),

“drug enforcement experts may testify that a defendant’s activities were consistent with a common criminal modus operandi”

 U.S. v. Johnson, 735 F.2d 1200, 1202 (9th Cir. 1994),

“[expert testimony from narcotics officer] helps the jury understand complex criminal activities, and alerts it to the possibility that combinations of seemingly innocuous events may indicate criminal behavior.”

 U.S. v. Cordoba, 104 F.3d 225, 229-30 (9th Cir. 1997),

Allowing expert testimony that a sophisticated drug dealer would not entrust large quantities of cocaine to an unknowing dupe.

 U.S. v. Patterson, 819 P.2d 1245, 1507 (9th Cir. 1987),

Allowing expert testimony on how criminal narcotics conspiracies operate. Allowing expert testimony that defendant’s actions were consistent with modus operandi of persons transporting drugs and engaging in countersurveillance.

 U.S. v. Maher, 645 P.2d 780, 783 (9th Cir. 1981),

Allowing expert testimony that defendant’s actions were consistent with modus operandi of persons transporting drugs and engaging in countersurveillance.

 U.S. v. VonWillie, 59 F.3d 922, 929 (9th Cir. 1995),

Agents testified that the following behaviors were consistent with an experienced drug trafficker:

1. Countersurveillance driving

2.Code word

3. Third person lookout

4. Rental car for delivery

5. Hiding dope in door panels

6. Large amount of very pure cocaine

 Evans v. State, 2007 OK CR 13,

Agent allowed to testify “code” meanings of words and phrases used during telephone conversations.

Based on agents personal experience and training in drug interdiction

Helpful to jury and did not tell jury what to believe.

 U.S. v. Patterson, 819 P.2d 1245, 1507 (9th Cir. 1987),

Allowing expert testimony on how criminal narcotics conspiracies operate.