United States v. Felix Montas
41 Fed. R. Serv. 701, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34290, 41 F.3d 775 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Expert testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702 is generally inadmissible if it concerns matters that are well within the bounds of a jury's ordinary experience, as its low probative value is often substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.
Facts:
- Hector Julio Felix Montas and an individual named Miguel Rivera purchased airline tickets together for a flight from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to New York City.
- They checked in at the same time, were assigned adjacent seats, and checked three bags. Two bags containing cocaine were checked under Rivera's name.
- A third bag, which did not contain drugs, had an identification tag with the name 'Pedro Felix' and Montas's address. All three bags had consecutive claim tag numbers.
- A U.S. Customs K-9 unit dog detected the presence of drugs in the two suitcases checked under Rivera's name.
- Customs inspectors located Montas, who was traveling under the name 'Felix, P.', in the gate area and detained him.
- While being observed by an inspector, Montas dropped a crumpled piece of paper which was later identified as the baggage claim checks for all three pieces of luggage.
- When the inspector pointed to the dropped paper, Montas denied it belonged to him.
- Upon being taken into custody, authorities found that Montas possessed a passport and other identification in his real name, Hector Julio Felix Montas. The person named Rivera was never apprehended.
Procedural Posture:
- Hector Julio Felix Montas was charged in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico with one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury found Montas guilty of the charge.
- Montas (as appellant) appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial judge's conduct, and the admission of expert testimony.
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 explaining that drug smugglers commonly travel under assumed names to avoid detection constitute a reversible error when the subject is readily intelligible to an average juror?
Opinions:
Majority - Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge.
No, the admission of the expert testimony does not constitute a reversible error in this case. The court held that while the testimony was likely improper, the failure of defense counsel to object on the specific grounds of Rule 702 or Rule 403 meant the issue was reviewed only for plain error. The court concluded that admitting testimony on a subject well within a jury's ordinary experience, such as why a criminal would use a false name, was not such a clear or obvious error that it affected the fundamental fairness of the trial. The court reasoned that an average juror can intelligently assess the inference of guilt from using a false name without expert assistance. The expert himself stated the reason was '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, because the proper objection was not made, the high standard for plain error was not met, and the conviction was affirmed based on the sufficiency of other evidence, such as Montas's possession and discarding of the claim checks.
Analysis:
This decision refines the application of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 by delineating a boundary for expert testimony concerning the 'modus operandi' of criminals. It establishes that while experts may explain complex or esoteric aspects of criminal enterprises, their testimony is improper when used to explain common-sense inferences that a jury can draw on its own. The case serves as a precedent against using expert testimony to simply bolster the prosecution's narrative on matters of ordinary human behavior and motivation. Furthermore, it underscores the critical importance of making specific and timely evidentiary objections at trial, as failure to do so subjects the appeal to the far more stringent 'plain error' standard of review, making a reversal much less likely.
