The line between expert testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and lay opinion testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 701 is not easy to draw. Indeed, the same witness--for example, a law enforcement officer--may be qualified to provide both lay and expert testimony in a single case. Fed. R. Evid. 701 advisory committee's note.
At 2 PM, on a Wednesday afternoon on Melilla Street in Loiza, Puerto Rico, near a house known to be a drug point, Officer Mulero, one of the arresting officers, arrested Luis Daniel Ayala-Pizarro. According to Officer Mulero, he and the other arresting officer, were in the area looking for two suspects in the wounding of another man. The officers observed Ayala and another man, Luis Vazquez Alvarez, at the right-hand corner of the house. Ayala and Vazquez did not see the officers, but the officers saw both men and that they were armed with firearms. The officers then detained and arrested the two men. A search of Ayala turned up 153 aluminum-foil covered decks of heroin from his left pocket, his companion had $ 250. The officers arrested three other men standing nearby. Each had a revolver. Experts determined that the heroin weighed 10.94 grams. An expert also testified that Ayala's gun was functioning and capable of firing in semiautomatic mode, and that its serial number was obliterated. At trial, when the government asked Officer Mulero about his experience with drug points, as a lead-in to Mulero's testimony that Ayala was arrested at a known drug point, defense counsel objected, arguing that this was expert testimony and that because the government had not given notice of expert testimony from Mulero, the witness could not so testify. At a subsequent bench conference, the government made a proffer that the witness would also testify that the particular packaging of the drugs seized showed they were packaged for distribution. Defense counsel countered that the testimony about the nature of the packaging was even more clearly expert testimony. The court ruled that the testimony that Melilla Street was a known drug point was permissible lay testimony. As to the packaging issue, the court ruled it needed to hear foundational evidence and allowed the testimony subject to a motion to strike. Thereafter, the defendant, Luis Daniel Ayala-Pizarro was convicted of possession with intent to distribute 153 decks of heroin and of knowingly possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He was acquitted of two additional gun charges involving possession of semiautomatic assault weapons. On appeal, Ayala-Pizarro argues that he is entitled to a new trial because two parts of Officer Mulero's testimony, first about how drug points operate and, second, about how heroin is packaged, could only be given by an expert and the government failed to give notice that Officer Mulero would testify as an expert.
Can Officer Mulero’s testimony about how drug points operate and about how heroin is packaged be considered an expert testimony?
The Court held that the officer's testimony was not expert testimony at all, but was admissible as lay witness testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 701. According to the Court, the officer's testimony about drug points was based on his personal knowledge gained through his experience investigating, patrolling, or making arrests at drug points on more than 100 occasions, and on his particularized knowledge by virtue of his position as a police officer. As to the packaging, the officer testified to his prior experience on prior drug arrests that the heroin seized at drug points was packed in aluminum decks and that the drugs in defendant's case were packaged in deck-like forms.