## Facts

- Hartford police executed a search warrant at an apartment, seizing nearly $30,000 in cash, a handgun, small amounts of cocaine and marijuana, and drug-packaging paraphernalia and scales.
- Andrew Headley was present during the search and was arrested; a search incident to arrest produced $890 in cash and a beeper.
- While processing evidence at the police station, a detective answered a page received on Headley’s beeper by calling the displayed number.
- An unidentified male with a Jamaican accent asked, “Are you up? Can I come by? Are you ready?” and hung up when the detective responded.
- At Headley’s Connecticut trial, the State offered the detective as an expert in narcotics investigations; he testified that seemingly innocuous questions are often coded language used to arrange narcotics transactions and explained features of drug-distribution operations.
- A jury convicted Headley of possession of narcotics with intent to sell and conspiracy to distribute narcotics; he received concurrent 12-year sentences.
- State appellate review affirmed the convictions, and further state review was denied.
- In federal habeas proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the district court granted relief, finding improper admission of the detective’s expert testimony and the unidentified caller’s statements, and concluding the errors had a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting a narcotics officer’s expert testimony interpreting coded language and drug-distribution practices rendered the trial fundamentally unfair in violation of due process for purposes of federal habeas relief.
2. Whether admitting an unidentified caller’s statements from a beeper-related phone call, treated as co-conspirator statements, violated federal constitutional rights (including confrontation), and if so, whether any error warranted habeas relief under the applicable harmless-error standard.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of habeas relief and remanded with directions to deny the petition.
- The court held the expert testimony was admissible and did not violate clearly established federal law or render the trial fundamentally unfair.
- The court held the unidentified caller’s statements were properly admitted as co-conspirator statements, or in any event did not justify habeas relief.
- The court concluded the district court erred in finding the challenged evidence had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury’s verdict.

## Legal Principles

- Federal habeas relief is not available for alleged state evidentiary errors unless the ruling so infected the trial with unfairness as to deny due process.
- Expert testimony may be admitted to explain specialized practices and coded language in narcotics trafficking beyond ordinary juror experience, so long as it assists the jury rather than merely pronouncing guilt.
- Statements made by a co-conspirator in furtherance of a conspiracy may be admitted based on circumstantial evidence linking the statements to the conspiracy; such admissions generally do not violate confrontation principles when fitting a recognized hearsay exception.
- Even if an evidentiary ruling is assumed erroneous, habeas relief requires a showing that the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the verdict.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that the challenged narcotics expert testimony and the unidentified caller’s statements did not amount to a constitutional violation warranting federal habeas relief and, in any event, did not meet the habeas harmless-error threshold; it therefore reversed and ordered denial of the petition.


Headley v. Tilghman, 53 F.3d 472 (2d Cir. 1995)