U.S. v. Bahena

In prosecution on charge of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, Dist. Ct. did not commit plain error when allowing government expert to give meaning regarding drug-related code words used by defendant in wiretap conversations. While defendant argued that expert gave his expert opinion on un-coded words that jury could have interpreted without expert opinion, said expert testimony did not affect defendant’s substantial rights under plain error standard, where: (1) expert’s testimony was not centerpiece of instant prosecution; (2) record contained actual wiretap conversations for jury’s consideration, as well as testimonies of 11 witnesses, some of whom were eye-witnesses to drug transactions; and (3) Dist. Ct. gave limiting instruction regarding significance of expert’s testimony. Ct. also rejected defendant’s claim that record contained insufficient evidence to support jury’s guilty verdict on his drug conspiracy charge, even though jury found him not guilty on drug distribution charge that was based on same evidence, Record contained sufficient evidence of existence of agreement to distribute cocaine, and that defendant intentionally joined said agreement.