United States v. Salvador Vera, 770 F.3d 1232

Salvador Reyes Vera and Armando Reyes Vera were convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, cocaine, cocaine base, and methamphetamine, and of using a minor in a drug offense.
Wiretap surveillance intercepted thousands of calls; agents testified about drug jargon and interpreted calls for quantities and drugs.
Detective Franks testified as both a gang expert and percipient witness; Agent Lavis testified about drug jargon interpretations of calls and drug quantities.
Jurors heard extensive wiretap evidence; the defense conceded conspiracy but contested drug type/quantity evidence.
The jury found the defendants liable for large quantities and the court imposed within-guidelines sentences at the low end.
On appeal, the court vacated the special-drug-quantity verdict and related sentences due to plain error in Lavis’ dual-role testimony and its foundation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Franks’ dual role violated Confrontation Clause	Mejia-like concerns about testimonial hearsay via case-agent expert.	Franks’ testimony was permissible expert opinion under Crawford and Dukagjini.	Franks’ dual-role testimony did not violate Confrontation Clause.
Whether Franks’ testimony violated Rule 403	Franks’ testimony was prejudicial and improper.	Testimony was relevant and not unduly prejudicial.	Any Rule 403 error was harmless for overall verdict.
Whether Lavis’ testimony mixing lay/expert and foundation was plain error	Lavis’ dual role and foundation were adequately explained.	Lavis’ testimony was necessary to prove drug quantities.	Yes; plain error to fail to instruct and to lack adequate foundation for Lavis’ opinions.
Whether Lavis’ drug-quantity testimony was admissible under Rules 701/702	Lavis’ interpretations were reliable expert opinions.	Foundations were insufficient; some opinions relied on hearsay or speculation.	Not admissible; quantity findings must be vacated.
What remedy is appropriate for drug-quantity defects	Retain conspiracy verdict; reframe sentencing to reflect corrected quantities.	Alternatively, retrial or resentence within proper ranges.	Vacate drug-quantity findings and sentences; remand for retrial of quantity or resentencing; conspiracy verdict preserved.

Mejia, 545 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2008) (examines officer testimony as a conduit for testimonial hearsay in expert guise)
Dukagjini, 326 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2003) (reliable methodology prerequisite for expert testimony)
Gomez, 725 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2013) (reaffirms Crawford-constrained analysis of expert testimony)
Freeman, 498 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2007) (hybrid lay/expert testimony and need for clear demarcation and foundation)
Gadson, 763 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2014) (distinguishes foundation for officer drug-quantity opinions)
Alleyne, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (mandatory-minimum enhancement facts must be jury-found)
Toliver, 351 F.3d 423 (9th Cir. 2003) (drug quantity as non-element but sentencing-adjunctive)
Thomas, 355 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2004) (drug-type/quantity not elements of §841 offense)