United States v. Sandoval
680 F. App'x 713
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Sandoval was investigated for methamphetamine distribution in the Denver area.
- Police executed a search warrant on Sandoval’s residence and found drug paraphernalia and other evidence.
- Sandoval made incriminating statements during and after the search, including statements about firearms and narcotics.
- Sandoval, a felon, was convicted by a jury on four counts related to firearms, methamphetamine distribution, aiding a drug-offense, and body armor possession.
- The district court admitted certain opinion testimony, allowed dual-role testimony, and referenced Sandoval’s Miranda invocation; Sandoval did not timely object to all these matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of lay vs. expert opinion evidence by detectives | Sandoval claims detectives offered improper expert opinions | testimonies were within lay perception and not beyond Rule 701 | No plain error; testimony admissible under Rule 701/702 context. |
| Dual capacity testimony by Officer Barben | Dual roles risk jury confusion and prejudice | No required precautions; no reversible error | No plain error; no reversible prejudice found. |
| Miranda reference by Detective Loveall | Reference to invocation violated Miranda protections | Only a single isolated reference; context and evidence overshadowed it | Not plain error; curative instruction not required. |
| Cumulative error analysis | Combined errors could mandate reversal | At most one actual error; cumulative effect insignificant | No reversal; cumulative error analysis does not warrant setting aside the verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brooks, 736 F.3d 921 (10th Cir. 2013) (plain-error review for unconfronted evidentiary objections)
- United States v. Hinson, 585 F.3d 1328 (10th Cir. 2009) (harms of unobjected evidence evaluated for plain error)
- United States v. Banks, 761 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2014) (Rule 16 disclosure and expert testimony safeguards)
- United States v. Richter, 796 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2015) (expert testimony via lay guise; prohibition against evasion of Rule 702/16)
- James River Ins. Co. v. Rapid Funding, LLC, 658 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2011) (lay vs. expert opinion distinctions and sufficiency standards)