## Facts

- Federal agents arrested a drug courier, Michael Sanders, at an airport after he arrived with a suitcase containing a large quantity of heroin.
- Sanders agreed to cooperate and participated in a controlled delivery that led to arrests of local participants in the importation scheme.
- Moore went to a bus station to pick up a drug courier at the direction of her boyfriend (“Baba”) and later gave agents a confession to that effect.
- Moore pleaded not guilty and was tried for attempted possession with intent to distribute heroin.
- At a co-defendant’s trial, the government presented a police officer (Robert Coleman) as an expert on drug transactions.
- Over objection, Coleman opined from experience that only people with knowledge of a drug deal would be present during such a transaction, without describing data, principles, or methods supporting that conclusion.
- The district court convicted all defendants and imposed substantial prison sentences, including 120 months for Sanders (statutory minimum) and 121 months for Moore.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court was required to conduct a sua sponte reliability inquiry under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert when neither party requested or meaningfully developed a Rule 702 challenge to the government’s expert testimony.
2. Whether Moore could challenge the admissibility of her confession on Miranda grounds when she did not file a pretrial suppression motion or object at trial.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences in consolidated appeals.
- The court held the district judge was not required to undertake a Rule 702/Daubert inquiry on the court’s own initiative when neither side requested it or supplied the information needed to evaluate reliability.
- The court concluded the objection made to the officer’s expertise went to weight and cross-examination rather than admissibility under Rule 702.
- The court held Moore forfeited any Miranda-based challenge to her confession by failing to move to suppress or object during trial.
- The court granted withdrawal of counsel who filed Anders briefs after determining there were no non-frivolous appellate issues.

## Legal Principles

- A trial judge is not obliged to conduct a Rule 702/Daubert reliability analysis sua sponte when neither party requests such review or provides assistance by developing the relevant record.
- In an adversarial system, evidentiary gatekeeping under Rule 702 is generally driven by party presentation; inadequate or misdirected objections may limit the scope of admissibility review.
- Experience-based law-enforcement testimony may qualify as “specialized knowledge” under Rule 702, and challenges aimed at an expert’s familiarity with the precise fact pattern typically affect weight, not admissibility.
- A defendant’s failure to file a suppression motion or object at trial ordinarily forfeits a challenge to the admissibility of a confession, including Miranda-based arguments.
- Anders procedures permit counsel to withdraw when the record reveals no non-frivolous appellate issues, after the appellate court’s independent review.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit affirmed all convictions and sentences, holding that district courts need not independently initiate Daubert/Rule 702 reliability review absent party request or support, and that Miranda objections to a confession are forfeited when not raised by timely suppression motion or trial objection.


United States v. Moore, 521 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2008)