United States v. Jose Chavez

MEMORANDUM

Jose Mariano Chavez appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute heroin and marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, arguing that the district court improperly admitted lay opinion testimony from FBI Special Agent Mathew Zeman. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

“A pretrial motion in limine preserves for appeal the issue of admissibility of that evidence if the substance of the objection has been thoroughly explored during the hearing and the district court’s ruling permitting introduction of evidence was explicit and definitive.” United States v. Lui, 941 F.2d 844, 846 (9th Cir.1991). Because the pretrial colloquy concerning the Government’s Motion in Limine to “Admit Lay Opinion Testimony” amounts to a definitive objection to its admissibility by Chavez that was subject to a thorough examination and ruled upon in an explicit manner, we review Chavez’s claim under the abuse of discretion standard. See id.

So long as the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 701 are met, a law enforcement officer may provide lay opinion testimony — gleaned from his investigation — about his understanding of the meaning of a declarant’s…