Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION 19-108
05-13-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SPENCER ROUNDS
SECTION I
ORDER & REASONS
LANCE M. AFRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court are two motions in limine: (1) a motion to allow authentication of and introduction of wiretap recordings through the testimony of case agents by the United States, and (2) a motion to permit an agent to provide lay opinion testimony regarding pertinent drug code by the United States. Defendant Spencer Rounds has also filed a memorandum in opposition to the government's notice of intent to offer 404(b) evidence at trial. The first motion is unopposed. The second motion was opposed by defendant Hakeam Drane, but as he has since pleaded guilty his opposition is now moot.
R. Doc. 184.
R. Doc. 185.
R. Doc. 204.
R. Doc. 199.
R. Doc. 211.
See, e.g., United States v. Bell, 966 F.2d 914, 915 (5th Cir. 1992) (“It is well settled that by entering a plea of guilty, a defendant ordinarily waives all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings below.”).
As the United States' motions are unopposed, and further, as the Court finds they have merit, the motion to permit authentication of wiretap recordings through the testimony of case agents and the motion to permit an agent to provide lay opinion testimony regarding pertinent drug code are GRANTED. The Court defers consideration of the memorandum in opposition to the government's notice of intent to offer 404(b) evidence at trial until the day of trial. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to permit authentication of wiretap recordings through the testimony of case agents and the motion to permit an agent to provide lay opinion testimony regarding pertinent drug code are GRANTED.
For the former motion, see United States v. Green, 324 F.3d 375, 380 (5th Cir. 2003) (finding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting case agents to testify as to the authenticity of the wiretaps). For the latter motion, see United States v. Macedo-Flores, 788 F.3d 181, 192 (5th Cir. 2015) (“our case law also allows [an agent] to testify to his lay opinion regarding the meaning of code words used in an investigation for which he is the lead investigator.”).
R. Doc. 184.
R. Doc. 185.
However, the Court will discuss appropriate parameters for the testimony of case agents related to both motions at trial and Rounds' counsel may make any objections to such testimony at trial.
R. Doc. 204.
R. Doc. 184.
R. Doc. 185.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any decision with respect to the 404(b) evidence the government intends to introduce at trial shall be DEFERRED UNTIL TRIAL.
R. Doc. 204.