United States v. Tiffany Wilson

MEMORANDUM

Tiffany Nicole Wilson appeals her conviction and sentence for possession of marijuana for sale. See 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(C). We affirm.

(1) Wilson first argues that the district court erred when it excluded the out of court statement of Joel Fuentes. We disagree. The statement was hearsay, and was not admissible as an exception for statements against interest, or pursuant to the residual exception. It was neither of an inculpatory nature nor reliable. Nor was any exceptional circumstance shown. See United States v. Bonds, 608 F.3d 495, 500-01 (9th Cir.2010).

(2) Wilson next claims that the district court erred when it excluded the testimony of Rebecca Molina. However, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the evidence of a wholly separate and dissimilar transport of marijuana was not relevant and, in effect, was unduly prejudicial.

(3) Wilson then asserts that the district court erred when it admitted expert testimony regarding the use of unknowing drug couriers. We do not agree. The district court was not required to conduct a pretrial qualification hearing, and the expert’s background and expertise were thoroughly…