U.S. v. Hilliard

In prosecution on drugs and firearm charges arising out of series of drug sales and drugs for firearm sales, Dist. Ct. did not err in allowing police official to testify on cross examination regarding occasion where defendant was observed at location conducting what appeared to be transaction with unidentified third party. While defendant argued that said testimony was speculative, as well as prejudicial in light of his entrapment defense and constituted improper expert testimony, where testifying police official did not personally witness said incident, record showed that police official later clarified that he had not witnessed any transaction between defendant and third party and had only received information about incident from another police official. As such, said testimony was not prejudicial with respect to defendant’s entrapment defense, and jury could otherwise decide what weight to give such testimony. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in giving entrapment instruction that informed jury that govt. had to prove either that law enforcement officers did not induce defendant to commit charged offenses, or that defendant was predisposed to commit charged offenses before he had contact with law enforcement officers. Moreover, fact that said instruction did not require govt. to prove that law enforcement officers did not persuade or otherwise induce defendant to commit charged offenses did not require different result.