## Facts

- Indiana law-enforcement officers used a confidential informant to conduct several controlled purchases of methamphetamine from Ronald Tingle at his residence.
- Officers obtained and executed a search warrant for Tingle’s residence.
- During the search, officers found a large quantity of methamphetamine (about 165 grams), digital scales, and cash (including cash on Tingle’s person and cash in the home).
- Officers also found multiple firearms in the residence, including a loaded handgun located on top of (or immediately next to) a desk that also contained methamphetamine and other drug-related items.
- A grand jury indicted Tingle for methamphetamine distribution offenses and related counts; after plea negotiations failed, the government obtained superseding indictments that increased Tingle’s potential mandatory minimum sentence.
- Before trial, Tingle moved to dismiss the added charges as prosecutorial vindictiveness, requested disclosure of grand-jury materials, and sought suppression of evidence from the search; the district court denied those requests.
- At trial, Agent Steele testified for the government. Steele had extensive narcotics-investigation experience (including many drug investigations and searches) and testified about drug-trafficking practices, the significance of the quantity of methamphetamine, and why traffickers keep firearms near drugs and proceeds.
- Based on the quantity and surrounding evidence, Steele testified that the methamphetamine was consistent with distribution, and that the handgun’s placement near the methamphetamine was consistent with using it to protect drugs and proceeds.
- The district court admitted Steele’s testimony, and the jury convicted Tingle of drug-distribution offenses and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 by qualifying and admitting Agent Steele’s testimony as opinion testimony based on specialized knowledge from narcotics-investigation experience.
2. Whether Steele’s testimony violated Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) by stating an opinion about Tingle’s mental state (such as intent to distribute or intent to use a firearm “in furtherance” of drug trafficking).
3. Whether the district court erred in denying Tingle’s request for disclosure of grand-jury materials for lack of a particularized need.
4. Whether superseding indictments sought after Tingle rejected a plea offer amounted to unconstitutional prosecutorial vindictiveness.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 702 in admitting Steele’s testimony about drug trafficking and the connection between firearms and trafficking; his opinions were based on extensive training and investigative experience and assisted the jury.
- Tingle did not preserve all Rule 704(b) objections at trial; reviewed under plain-error standards, Steele’s testimony—framed largely in terms of what the evidence was “consistent with” in trafficking cases—did not warrant reversal.
- The district court properly denied disclosure of grand-jury materials because Tingle did not show a particularized need; speculative requests were not enough to overcome grand-jury secrecy.
- The added charges did not establish actual or presumed prosecutorial vindictiveness where the government, during pretrial plea bargaining, warned it would seek additional charges supported by probable cause if Tingle rejected the offer, and then did so.

## Legal Principles

- A law-enforcement witness with substantial narcotics training and investigative experience may give Rule 702 testimony on common drug-trafficking practices (including quantities, tools of distribution, and why traffickers keep firearms near drugs or money) when the testimony helps the jury interpret evidence beyond ordinary experience.
- Rule 704(b) bars an opinion that directly states whether a defendant had the mental state that is an element of the offense, but testimony describing typical trafficking indicators or that certain facts are “consistent with” trafficking generally does not cross that line; unpreserved objections are reviewed only for plain error.
- Grand-jury materials remain confidential absent a concrete, particularized need showing that disclosure is required to avoid an injustice; generalized hope of finding impeachment material or proof of misconduct is insufficient.
- Under due-process limits on vindictive prosecution, there is generally no presumption of vindictiveness in the pretrial plea-bargaining setting when the prosecutor threatens additional charges and later brings them, so long as the charges are supported by probable cause and there is no proof of retaliatory motive.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld Tingle’s convictions, holding that the district court reasonably admitted Agent Steele’s testimony on drug trafficking and the role of firearms, that any claimed mental-state problem under Rule 704(b) did not justify reversal on the record and standards of review, that Tingle failed to justify breaching grand-jury secrecy, and that the government’s superseding indictments after unsuccessful plea negotiations did not amount to unconstitutional prosecutorial vindictiveness.


United States v. Tingle, 880 F.3d 850 (2018)