## Facts

- Jorge Alberto Alatorre drove a car with his two children to the San Ysidro, California port of entry.
- During questioning by a U.S. Customs inspector, a dog alerted to the vehicle; inspection revealed 68.8 pounds of marijuana hidden in a compartment above the rear tire well.
- A federal grand jury charged Alatorre with (1) importing marijuana (21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960) and (2) possessing marijuana with intent to distribute (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)).
- Before trial, the parties litigated motions in limine about proposed expert testimony; the district court allowed expert testimony on marijuana value and whether the amount was distributable, and limited testimony about drug-enterprise structure unless the defense raised a fingerprints-related issue.
- At trial, the government presented expert testimony from a senior U.S. Customs special agent on wholesale and retail value; the defense conducted extensive voir dire of the expert in the jury’s presence.
- The jury convicted Alatorre on both counts.

## Issues

1. Whether Daubert and related Supreme Court precedent require a separate, pretrial hearing outside the jury’s presence to determine the admissibility of expert testimony.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by assessing reliability and relevance through in limine proceedings and in-trial examination rather than a stand-alone Daubert hearing.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court held that a separate Daubert hearing is not required.
- The court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion by handling admissibility through motions in limine, a hearing on those motions, and in-trial voir dire and findings on reliability and relevance.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts must act as gatekeepers to ensure expert testimony is relevant and reliable, but the gatekeeping inquiry is flexible and does not mandate a formal evidentiary hearing in every case.
- A district court has substantial discretion over the procedure used to evaluate expert admissibility, including relying on written submissions, argument, and examination of the expert during trial (including voir dire before the jury).
- Appellate review of both the admissibility ruling and the method used to conduct the Daubert inquiry is for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld the admission of the government’s drug-valuation expert testimony and affirmed Alatorre’s convictions, holding that the district court satisfied its Daubert gatekeeping duty without conducting a separate pretrial Daubert hearing.


United States v. Alatorre, 222 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2000)