## Facts

- Missouri highway patrol stopped Luciano Martinez-Figueroa’s tractor-trailer on Interstate 44 near Joplin, Missouri.
- Martinez-Figueroa consented to a search of the refrigerated trailer, which contained cheddar cheese and 537 kilograms of marijuana.
- An undercover narcotics agent had arranged to receive a marijuana delivery near Joplin and met a confidential informant at a truck stop on Interstate 44; a co-conspirator instructed Martinez-Figueroa to retrieve the truck.
- Agents followed the truck from the truck stop and contacted the highway patrol, which then stopped the vehicle.
- After Miranda warnings, Martinez-Figueroa initially denied knowledge but later admitted he knew he was hauling marijuana.
- An officer used the trucking logbook to question Martinez-Figueroa about a circuitous route from California toward Indiana; the logbook reflected delays and repeated routing.
- The government introduced evidence that the trailer lacked a door seal despite paperwork indicating a seal should have been present.
- Martinez-Figueroa testified he falsified the logbook to avoid trucking regulations and denied being at the truck stop, knowing the undercover agent, or removing the seal.
- A jury convicted Martinez-Figueroa of conspiracy to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846), and he received a 97-month sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a mid-trial request to question a Secret Service agent about the confidential informant’s whereabouts and by refusing a missing-witness instruction as to that informant.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting a highway patrol officer’s logbook-related “background” testimony as lay testimony, rather than undisclosed expert testimony requiring disclosure under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying informant-related questioning and the requested missing-witness instruction.
- The court held the officer’s logbook testimony was permissible lay background testimony and did not trigger Rule 16 expert-disclosure requirements.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant seeking disclosure or access to information about a confidential informant must make a concrete showing that the information is material and favorable; speculation about helpfulness is insufficient.
- A missing-witness instruction is generally unwarranted absent a showing that the witness is peculiarly within the opposing party’s power to produce and that the absence lacks an adequate explanation.
- Testimony based on an officer’s personal observations and routine investigative experience that helps the jury understand evidence may be admitted as lay testimony; it is not expert testimony unless it rests on specialized knowledge.
- When challenged as undisclosed expert testimony, the classification of the testimony and any resulting prejudice inform whether Rule 16 disclosure is required and whether admission is reversible error.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld Martinez-Figueroa’s marijuana-trafficking convictions, concluding the trial court acted within its discretion in denying informant-related requests and in admitting logbook-related testimony as lay background rather than undisclosed expert opinion.


United States v. Martinez-Figueroa, 363 F.3d 679 (8th Cir. 2004)