United States v. Oriedo

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that error in classifying agent’s testimony as lay opinion and failing to subject it to the disclosure requirements was harmless
• holding that different agent in Oriedo, who had found plastic baggies with the corners cut in defendant’s hotel room, testified in expert capacity when informing the jury that this is how crack cocaine is packaged for distribution
• indicating that an agent can testify to his state of mind while observing a drug deal even if the testimony is informed by the agent’s specialized training
• finding that a three-year delay was substantial but not enough, alone, to support a finding of a Sixth Amendment violation
• explaining that one agent’s testimony was expert in nature because “he brought the wealth of his experience as a narcotics officer to bear on [his] observations and made connections for the jury based on that specialized knowledge”
• applying harmless error test to claim that court erroneously admitted expert testimony that was not disclosed to the defense

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).