United States v. Felix Montas
1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34290, 41 F.3d 775, 41 Fed. R. Serv. 701 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Expert testimony is inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 if it concerns matters of common sense that an average juror can intelligently assess on their own. The admission of such testimony, however, will not constitute plain error requiring reversal unless the defendant makes a specific and timely objection at trial, or the error is so shocking it affects the fundamental fairness of the proceeding.
Facts:
- On June 30, 1993, a U.S. Customs K-9 unit dog detected drugs in two suitcases checked under the name 'Miguel Rivera' for a flight from San Juan to New York.
- A third bag, also checked under Rivera's name, bore a handwritten identification tag with the name 'Pedro Felix' and the address of the defendant, Hector Julio Felix Montas. All three bags had consecutive claim tags.
- Airline records indicated that passengers 'Pedro Felix' and 'Miguel Rivera' had purchased tickets, checked in, and checked their bags at the same time and were assigned adjacent seats.
- Customs inspectors located Montas, who was traveling under the name 'Pedro Felix', in the flight gate area.
- After being told that a dog had detected the odor of narcotics on his bags, an inspector observed a crumpled piece of paper fall from Montas.
- The inspector retrieved the paper and discovered it contained the baggage claim checks for all three pieces of luggage, including the two containing cocaine.
- Montas denied that the claim checks belonged to him.
- Upon being taken into custody, Montas was found to possess identification, including a passport, in his real name, Hector Julio Felix Montas.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States charged Hector Julio Felix Montas in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (the trial court) with one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
- Following a trial, a jury returned a verdict of guilty.
- Montas appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of expert testimony that drug couriers commonly travel under assumed names to avoid detection constitute plain error requiring reversal when the defendant failed to object on proper grounds at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge
No, the admission of the expert testimony does not constitute plain error requiring reversal. While expert testimony is only appropriate for subjects beyond the ken of an average juror, the defendant's failure to object on the proper grounds under FRE 702 or 403 means the appellate court reviews only for 'plain error.' The court found the expert's testimony—that drug smugglers use false names to avoid being caught—was on a subject 'well within the bounds of a jury’s ordinary experience,' noting the expert himself called the reason 'obvious.' Such testimony carries little probative value and a real risk of unfair prejudice by placing an 'expert's stamp of approval' on the government's theory. However, the error of its admission was not 'clear or obvious' and was not 'so shocking that it seriously affect[ed] the fundamental fairness' of the trial. Therefore, without a proper objection at trial, the conviction will not be reversed on these grounds.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the boundary for admissible expert testimony under FRE 702, establishing that it should not be used to explain commonsense inferences a jury is perfectly capable of making on its own. It serves as a strong caution to prosecutors against bolstering their cases with expert testimony on obvious matters. Crucially, however, the case also underscores the procedural importance of making specific and timely evidentiary objections. By declining to reverse under the high bar of 'plain error' review, the court signals that trial counsel's failure to properly object will often prove fatal to an otherwise valid evidentiary challenge on appeal, thereby preserving convictions despite trial court errors.
