## Facts

- Evans Samuel Santos Diaz was indicted with others for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine in Pennsylvania, with a co-defendant identified as the organizer.
- Diaz proceeded to a jury trial while his co-defendants pleaded guilty.
- The government presented intercepted communications and surveillance evidence tying Diaz to heroin transactions.
- A DEA task force officer testified as a lay witness interpreting coded language in wiretapped calls and describing Diaz’s role in the charged conspiracy.
- Before trial, Diaz complained about appointed counsel (including alleged pressure to plead guilty, disagreement over motions, and discovery access) and sought new counsel; the district court held a hearing on those complaints and later appointed different counsel.
- At sentencing, the district court attributed 30 grams of heroin to Diaz, affecting the advisory Sentencing Guidelines calculation; Diaz argued he was responsible for less than 20 grams.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to adequately inquire into Diaz’s later complaints about counsel and requests for substitution, in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
2. Whether the admission of portions of the DEA officer’s lay opinion testimony interpreting wiretap evidence violated Federal Rule of Evidence 701 and, if so, whether it constituted reversible plain error.
3. Whether the district court clearly erred in attributing more than 20 grams of heroin (30 grams) to Diaz for Guidelines purposes, and whether any error was harmless.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed Diaz’s conviction and sentence.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in its handling of Diaz’s counsel complaints and substitution requests.
- The court found some challenged testimony exceeded proper Rule 701 lay opinion, but concluded there was no reversible plain error because it did not affect Diaz’s substantial rights.
- The court held the district court did not clearly err in attributing more than 20 grams of heroin to Diaz and that any overstatement beyond 20 grams was harmless because it did not change the applicable Guidelines range.

## Legal Principles

- A district court’s response to a defendant’s complaints about appointed counsel and requests for substitution is reviewed for abuse of discretion; reversal generally requires an inadequate inquiry or an unreasonable basis for denying relief.
- Federal Rule of Evidence 701 permits lay opinion only if it is (1) rationally based on the witness’s perception, (2) helpful to the jury, and (3) not based on specialized knowledge within Rule 702; conclusory interpretations that effectively tell the jury what to infer may violate Rule 701.
- Unpreserved evidentiary objections are reviewed for plain error; even if there is error, the defendant must show it affected substantial rights and impacted the outcome.
- Drug-quantity findings at sentencing are reviewed for clear error; any error is harmless if it does not change the Guidelines range used to sentence the defendant.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit upheld Diaz’s conspiracy conviction and sentence, concluding that the district court’s handling of counsel-substitution complaints was within its discretion, any improper Rule 701 lay-opinion testimony did not warrant reversal under plain-error review, and the drug-quantity finding was not clearly erroneous and did not affect the Guidelines range.


United States v. Diaz, 951 F.3d 148 (3d Cir. 2020)