## Facts

- Kevin Freeman was charged with conspiracy to manufacture and distribute at least 50 grams of cocaine base and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
- The prosecution alleged Freeman obtained cocaine from Corey Mitchell and Maurice Brown, associated with a larger drug-trafficking organization under federal investigation.
- During the investigation, agents intercepted telephone calls between Freeman and Brown.
- At trial, the government called Los Angeles Police Detective Bob Shin to interpret the intercepted calls.
- The district court permitted Shin to testify as an expert about purported coded drug terminology in the calls and also as a lay witness interpreting non-jargon statements in “plain English.”
- Some of Shin’s testimony interpreted ordinary phrases (e.g., equating “get all the particulars” with “get all the details”).
- The jury was not given a limiting instruction distinguishing Shin’s expert testimony from his lay testimony, and Freeman did not request such an instruction.
- Freeman was convicted and appealed, challenging the admission and scope of Shin’s dual-capacity testimony and related evidentiary rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court properly admitted the detective’s drug-code interpretations as expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
2. Whether the detective’s interpretations of ordinary, non-coded language were improperly admitted as lay opinion under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 or as expert testimony lacking a proper basis.
3. Whether allowing the detective to testify in both expert and lay capacities without a clarifying instruction required reversal.
4. If any evidentiary error occurred, whether it was harmless.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed Freeman’s conviction and sentence.
- The court held that expert testimony translating genuinely coded drug language may be admissible under Rule 702 when it assists the jury.
- The court concluded that portions of the detective’s testimony should have been excluded because they interpreted ordinary language not requiring specialized knowledge and risked blurring Rules 701 and 702.
- The court held that the absence of a dual-role limiting instruction did not require reversal on the facts presented, particularly because no instruction was requested.
- Any evidentiary errors were harmless and did not affect Freeman’s substantial rights; additional appellate claims were rejected as meritless.

## Legal Principles

- Expert testimony is admissible under Rule 702 when it assists the factfinder and rests on reliable methods reliably applied; law-enforcement drug-code testimony may qualify when it explains jargon outside common understanding.
- Lay opinion under Rule 701 must be rationally based on the witness’s perception, helpful to the factfinder, and not based on specialized knowledge within Rule 702.
- A law-enforcement witness’s dual role as expert and lay witness creates a risk that the jury will give undue weight to interpretations of ordinary language or infer broad conclusions of guilt.
- Trial courts should police the boundary between Rules 701 and 702 to prevent expert status from becoming a vehicle for unnecessary or speculative “translations” of plain English.
- Erroneous admission of opinion testimony warrants reversal only if it substantially affects the verdict; cumulative or self-evident interpretations and other independent evidence of guilt may support a finding of harmless error.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that while expert testimony translating coded drug terminology can be admissible, the government’s witness improperly interpreted some ordinary language in a manner that blurred lay and expert opinion; because the errors did not substantially influence the verdict, the conviction and sentence were affirmed.


United States v. Freeman, 498 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2007)