In U.S. v. Garcia, No. 04-14763 (May 3, 2006), the Court affirmed drug trafficking convictions and rejected the defendant’s challenges to the admission of expert testimony evidence concerning the secret codes of drug traffickers.
The recorded conversations introduced in evidence at trial included references, inter alia, to "shirts." The government introduced expert testimony of a DEA agent, who had spoken to a testifying government informant, and who testified that the defendants were speaking, as Mexican drug dealers do, in code, and that the word "shirts" referred to shipments of "cocaine."
The Court held that it was not an abuse of discretion to admit the expert testimony concernng the practices of drug organizations. The DEA agent in question had been involved in at least 50 prior drug investigations. Further, the testimony was highly probative as it explained how the evidence showed that the defendants were advancing the goals of the drug trafficking organization.
The Court also held that no Confrontation Clause violation occurred when the DEA agent testified that he relied in part on what he was told by the government informant about the meaning of "shirts." This informant also testified at trial, and therefore the defendants had an opportunity to confront him and cross-examine him.
The Court also found that the expert testified to matters within his expertise, and that his reliance on hearsay evidence was therefore legitimate.
The Court rejected one defendant’s claim that the district court should have disqualified his attorney when a conflict became apparent a trial between this lawyer’s representation of both himself and a co-defendant. The Court pointed out that the Magistrate Judge held a complete hearing on this subject at which the defendant knowingly waived his right to obtain his own attorney.
Finally, the Court rejected all challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, pointing out, for example, that cell phone calls were placed on a phone to which one of the defendants subscribed, to a co-defendant cousin to whom the defendant referred as "cuz."
