U.S. v. Parkhurst

In prosecution on charge of attempt to entice minor to engage in sexual activity that arose of out sting operation, where adult police officer posed as 15-year old boy responding to defendant’s Craigslist advertisement, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting officer’s testimony regarding meaning of term “candy” in subsequent email chain between defendant and officer. While defendant argued that said testimony constituted impermissible expert testimony under Rule 702 that was not based on reliable principles and methods, Dist. Ct. could properly find that said testimony qualified as permissible lay-opinion testimony that was based on officer’s perception of his email conversation with defendant. Also, officer could testify regarding key words in defendant’s Craigslist advertisement to show that defendant was really asking for underage individuals, since: (1) such testimony helped jury interpret said advertisement; (2) such testimony was permissible without providing scientific methodologies; and (3) officer’s testimony was based on his background knowledge of criminal activity on Craigslist and not on defendant’s mindset. Also, govt. could question defendant about his other uncharged emails indicating desire to interact with underage individuals to discredit notion raised by defendant that he had only wanted to interact with of-age individuals in subject Craigslist advertisement.