United States v. Morin
627 F.3d 985
5th Cir.2010Background
- Morin was convicted of possession with intent to distribute over 1,000 kg of marijuana and conspiracy to do so.
- Evidence showed Morin at a Stripes store where video allegedly linked him to a drug-trafficking scheme; foreign load forged bill of lading indicated cabbage but evidence suggested marijuana.
- A drug-sniffing dog and secondary inspection revealed 3,586.18 kg of marijuana hidden under cabbage in a tractor-trailer.
- Morin gave a post-arrest statement to DEA agents; his initial statements differed from trial testimony regarding Stripes store presence and itinerary.
- Video and surveillance from 16 Stripes cameras, ISPE warehouse testimony, and company records conflicted with Morin’s defense.
- The prosecutor asked profiling-type questions and elicited opinion testimony from agents about drug organization behavior, which Morin challenged as improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether profiling testimony by agents was admissible | Morin argues profiling testimony violated rules on expert testimony under Rule 702/704 | Morin contends profiling testimony inferred knowledge and guilt without proper basis | No reversible plain error; mostly background, not profiling; no prejudice shown |
| Whether Agent Minnick's testimony crossed into impermissible drug-courier profiling | Profiling opinion about Morin’s knowledge and role was improper | Profiling testimony was allowed as summary of video and background | Mostly allowed; due to plain error, burden on Morin not met regarding substantial rights |
| Whether the prosecutor's question about Morin calling or knowing other drug dealers warrants reversal | Question was improper and prejudicial | Isolated, not impactful on verdict | No reversal; isolated, not shown to affect substantial rights |
| Whether the district court erred in admitting summary/video analysis by Minnick | Video summary and interpretation prejudiced the jury | Summary testimony aided understanding of complex video evidence | Allowed; but limited to non-profiling portions; no plain-error impact on verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchez-Hernandez v. United States, 507 F.3d 826 (5th Cir. 2007) (background drug-trade testimony admissible with limits)
- Gonzalez-Rodriguez v. United States, 621 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2010) (profiling testimony barred when it serves as mental-state inference)
- Gutierrez-Farias v. United States, 294 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2002) (borderline profiling testimony; line between background and opinion on knowledge)
- Williams v. United States, 957 F.2d 1238 (5th Cir. 1992) (drug-courier profile testimony generally inadmissible as substantive evidence of guilt)
- Mendoza-Medina v. United States, 346 F.3d 121 (5th Cir. 2003) (limiting role of expert testimony in drug cases)
- Redd v. United States, 355 F.3d 866 (5th Cir. 2003) (jury instruction on knowledge and possession considerations)
- Gracia v. United States, 522 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 2008) (plain-error standard and impact on verdict emphasizes substantial rights)
- Nguyen v. United States, 504 F.3d 561 (5th Cir. 2007) (summary testimony and expert analysis limitations)
- Trejo v. United States, 610 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 2010) (plain-error framework for evaluating prosecutorial error)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (Supreme Court 1993) (plain-error_review framework)
- Williams v. Gutierrez-Farias, not applicable (not applicable) ( cited within profiling discussion)