The defendant first challenged the district court's denial of a motion to continue when the government, on the morning of trial, turned over a video taken at the airport showing the drugs removed from the defendant's luggage. The Court agreed that the denial of a continuance was error and counseled more patience in the future. But it found that the defendant "has not come close" to showing substantial or specific prejudice, because the video only showed the drugs after they were removed from the luggage. Thus, they did not show that the drugs were removed only from the defendant's checked bags, as opposed to his carry on bag, and the video did not otherwise exculpate him.
The Court rejected the defendant's remaining arguments. It rejected a Brady challenge to the government's late disclosure of the video on the ground that it was neither exculpatory nor material to the defense, and it rejected a due process challenge to the exclusion of the video at trial on similar grounds.
The Court rejected the exclusion from evidence of controlled calls between the defendant and his handler on the ground that they were hearsay, irrelevant, and not admissible under the rule of completeness. And, in any event, any error was harmless.
The Court next rejected the defendant's argument that the court limited his cross examination of two government witnesses, finding that the exclusion was proper on hearsay grounds, and any error was harmless in any event.
Next, the Court rejected the argument that a law-enforcement lay witness crossed the line into giving expert testimony by drawing on his experience interviewing drug couriers, and, again, it found that any error was harmless. The Court also rejected the argument that the witness had opined on the ultimate issue in the case by opining that the defendant's interview answers were not truthful. The Court also rejected an argument that a government witness impermissibly testified about drug-courier profiles, but rather testified only about street value, quantities, methods, and general drug mule techniques, etc..., and did not testify about the defendant's knowledge.
The Court rejected the argument that the court erred by giving a deliberate ignorance instruction. It found that ample evidence supported the instruction. It also found ample evidence of actual knowledge, and the court was permitted to give both instructions.
Finally, in light of the rulings above, the Court rejected the defendant's cumulative error argument.