United States v. Carlos Mendiola
707 F.3d 735
7th Cir.2013Background
- DEA monitored Alfredo Galindo Villalobos and learned of a drugs trafficking scheme involving a contact named Carlos 'Pelon'; a November 1, 2002 bus-station seizure yielded about 5,000 grams of cocaine and hidden pockets in clothing.
- Suspected co-conspirators included Mendoza, Valadez, and Diaz-Casales; a later nationwide takedown followed with arrests and searches of vehicles linked to the conspiracy.
- Mendiola’s trial featured Galindo’s testimony (strong credibility issues) along with co-conspirators and extensive physical evidence, including wire intercepts and English translations.
- DEA linguist Georgina Nido identified Mendiola’s voice on intercepted calls; transcripts were pre-stipulated as authentic with exception of speaker identity for Mendiola.
- District court admitted Nido’s voice identification; Mendiola was convicted on three narcotics-trafficking counts and sentenced to 151 months.
- Issue on appeal was whether Nido’s voice identification testimony was admissible under Rule 901(b) and Rule 701, and whether it violated the Best Evidence Rule; the court affirmed the admission, holding the testimony proper as lay opinion under Rule 701 and non-expert under Rule 901(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nido’s voice identification was admissible as lay testimony | Mendiola argues Nido was an expert in linguistics and should have qualified as expert | Mendiola contends Nido’s testimony is improper expert identification | Admissible as lay testimony under Rule 701 and 901(b)(5) |
| Whether the Best Evidence Rule was violated by admitting voice identification | Voice identification proves content and should require the original recording | Voice identity is a non-content attribute and does not trigger Best Evidence | Not violated; voice exemplars identify speaker, not content; Best Evidence Rule inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Recendiz, 557 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2009) (voice identification not expert, based on familiarity)
- United States v. Magana, 118 F.3d 1173 (7th Cir. 1997) (non-expert voice identification permissible)
- United States v. Degaglia, 913 F.2d 372 (7th Cir. 1990) (lay witness voice ID permissible)
- United States v. Mansoori, 304 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2002) (federal language specialist identification allowed; lay testimony)
- United States v. Cruz-Rea, 626 F.3d 929 (7th Cir. 2010) (transcripts aid jury; foreign-language recordings)
- United States v. Jones, 600 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2010) (lay witness voice identification adequate with minimal familiarity)
- United States v. Saulter, 60 F.3d 270 (7th Cir. 1995) (two short conversations sufficient for familiarity)
- United States v. Grier, 866 F.2d 908 (7th Cir. 1989) (recordings properly admitted with lay ID)
- United States v. Rrapi, 175 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 1999) (voice identification context in wiretap)