## Facts

- Federal prosecutors alleged Rodney L. Moore and multiple codefendants participated in a violent, long-running narcotics enterprise in the Washington, D.C. area.
- A grand jury returned a 158-count indictment alleging, among other offenses, a large-scale drug-trafficking conspiracy, racketeering-related crimes, and numerous murders.
- At the joint trial, the government began its case with FBI Special Agent Daniel Sparks as an “overview” witness.
- Over defense objections, Sparks gave a broad narrative describing the conspiracy and defendants’ roles before the government introduced underlying witnesses or physical evidence.
- Sparks’s testimony included opinions about the charged crimes, asserted reasons for defendants’ actions, described the conspiracy’s structure, and characterized relationships among alleged coconspirators.
- The defendants were convicted on numerous counts, including racketeering-related offenses and drug-trafficking charges.

## Issues

1. Whether allowing the government to present an FBI “overview” witness who gave wide-ranging narrative and opinion testimony at the outset was error and, if so, whether it required reversal.
2. Whether the government’s use of peremptory strikes violated *Batson v. Kentucky*.
3. Whether requiring stun belts and empaneling an anonymous jury deprived defendants of due process and a fair trial.
4. Whether additional evidentiary and procedural rulings (including Rule 404(b), Brady, Confrontation Clause, Jencks Act, limitations, and joinder issues) warranted reversal.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit largely affirmed the convictions and rejected most appellate claims.
- The court held substantial portions of the FBI agent’s “overview” testimony were improper, including opinion-like statements about the conspiracy and defendants’ conduct.
- The court nevertheless found the error harmless given the overall record, the strength of other evidence, and the trial context, and it declined to reverse on that basis.
- The court rejected the *Batson* challenges, concluding the district court did not clearly err in accepting the government’s race-neutral explanations.
- The court upheld the use of stun belts and an anonymous jury as supported by case-specific security concerns and implemented in a way that minimized unfair prejudice.
- The court also rejected (or found harmless) the remaining challenges to evidentiary and procedural rulings.

## Legal Principles

- “Overview” or “summary” testimony that functions as advocacy—especially when it offers opinions on guilt, motive, conspiracy structure, or relationships—risks invading the jury’s role and may be improper under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
- Presenting a sweeping narrative through a law-enforcement witness before supporting evidence is introduced heightens the risk that jurors will treat argumentative framing as proof.
- Erroneous admission of such testimony does not require reversal absent a showing of prejudice; appellate review considers the totality of the evidence, trial context, and limiting instructions.
- Under *Batson*, appellate courts defer to trial-court credibility determinations on the prosecutor’s race-neutral reasons unless clearly erroneous.
- Trial courts have discretion to employ security measures (including restraints and anonymous juries) in exceptionally dangerous cases when justified by the record and administered to reduce undue prejudice.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit treated the government’s use of an FBI “overview” witness to present an early, opinion-laden narrative as significant error but held it did not affect the verdicts in light of the full trial record, and it affirmed the defendants’ convictions while rejecting challenges to jury selection, courtroom security measures, and other evidentiary and procedural rulings.


United States v. Moore, 651 F.3d 30 (D.C. Cir. 2011)