U.S. v. Tingle

In prosecution on drug distribution and related firearm charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in allowing govt. witness to give expert testimony without examining credentials of said witness or determining whether expert testimony would assist jury in resolution of case. No Daubert hearing was necessary in instant case, where: (1) said witness was DEA agent, who had 16 years experience and had been involved in many drug cases; and (2) witness’ training and expertise was of sort that was helpful to jury in drug distribution case. Moreover, said witness properly did not give opinion as to whether defendant had requisite mental state to constitute element of charged offense, where said witness couched his testimony in light of his expertise. Also, said witness could properly opine as to whether quantity of drugs linked to defendant was consistent with average user’s personal consumption. Additionally, Dist. Ct. could properly refuse defendant’s request for access to grand jury materials, where information from grand jury is presumptively secret, and where defendant otherwise failed to show that his need for disclosure of said materials outweighed need for secrecy. Too, prosecutor’s statement to defendant that he would seek superceding indictment with more charges if defendant rejected proposed plea offer did not establish claim that prosecutor was vindictive, even though defendant eventually rejected plea offer and trial on superceding indictment proceeded.