United States v. Jerome Hampton
405 U.S. App. D.C. 328
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- Hampton was retried and convicted of conspiracy to distribute PCP, under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(iv).
- Evidence centered on FBI wiretaps from Lonnell Glover’s DC drug operation and Velma Williams’s testimony.
- Agent Bevington, not qualified as an expert, testified as a lay witness interpreting ambiguous recordings and other recordings were discussed.
- Bevington claimed to have reviewed thousands of calls and explained meanings of terms and phrases used in the conversations.
- The district court admitted Bevington’s interpretations; the government relied on these lay opinions to interpret the recordings for the jury.
- Conviction eventually vacated and case remanded due to Rule 701 error and its impact on the jury’s ability to assess evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 701 compliance with lay-opinion testimony | Hampton argues Bevington’s interpretations violated Rule 701. | The government contends Bevington’s testimony aided the jury in understanding evidence. | Yes, error under Rule 701; district court abused discretion. |
| Harmless error standard and impact on verdict | Bevington’s interpretations were crucial given reliance on wiretaps and Williams’s testimony. | Any error was harmless given other evidence. | Not harmless; jury likely affected; reversal necessary. |
| Bevington’s testimony as expert testimony | Some opinions resembled expert testimony under Rule 702. | Opinions were lay interpretations. | Court notes some statements could be expert, but reversal hinges on Rule 701 error; decision on harmlessness unnecessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Grinage, 390 F.3d 746 (2d Cir. 2004) (lay opinions must not usurp jury function; risk of outside information)
- United States v. Dukagjini, 326 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2003) (interpretations of recorded conversations by case agents; risk of non-jury basis)
- United States v. Williams, 212 F.3d 1305 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (review abuse of discretion for lay-opinion testimony)
- United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2005) (expert vs lay opinions; reliance on outside information cautioned)
- United States v. Moore, 651 F.3d 30 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (overview witnesses; risk of outside-evidence reliance)
- United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (1985) (prosecutor's opinions may risk coercing jury; must be based on trial evidence)
- United States v. Rea, 958 F.2d 1206 (2d Cir. 1992) (failure to identify basis for lay opinion undermines Rule 701)