United States v. Wright
4:21-cr-01031
| D. Ariz. | Mar 4, 2022Background
- Government notified it will call HSI Special Agent Bryn Elton as an expert on coded language used in drug trafficking and money laundering communications.
- SA Elton is expected to testify about generalized use of coded terms and specific phrases allegedly used by defendant (e.g., “moving shit,” “doing a paper run,” “haystacks,” “presents delivered, paper work picked up, NYC complete”).
- SA Elton’s CV: law enforcement since 2001; HSI special agent investigating cross-border criminal activity since 2015.
- Defendant moved to preclude Elton’s expert testimony, arguing the Government failed to show (1) the terms are commonly used jargon and (2) the reliability of Elton’s methodology in interpreting them; Defendant also challenged lack of specificity about “other phrases.”
- Government contended Elton is qualified and the phrases are commonly used by trafficking/money laundering organizations.
- Court found the Government’s notice insufficient as to Elton’s methodology for interpreting the phrases and ordered the Government to produce an expert report or sworn declaration from Elton within 14 days specifying (1) the precise language he will testify about, (2) whether and how he recognized the language as commonly used, and (3) the methodology used for any phrases he had not previously encountered. The defense motion was taken under advisement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of SA Elton’s expert testimony under Rule 702 | Elton is qualified; his specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact; the phrases are commonly used jargon | Government failed to show common usage or reliability of Elton’s interpretive method; notice lacks specificity | Motion taken under advisement; court ordered a detailed expert report/declaration to establish methodology and scope before ruling on admissibility |
| Whether SA Elton is qualified to offer jargon interpretation | SA Elton’s experience in HSI and law enforcement qualifies him as an expert | Qualification not contested; focus is on methodology and reliability | Court acknowledged Elton appears qualified; qualification not disputed |
| Whether the phrases are commonly used drug/money‑laundering jargon | Phrases are commonly used by trafficking and laundering organizations | Government did not demonstrate how Elton recognized them as commonly used; challenged as insufficiently supported | Government must explain whether and how Elton recognized the terms as commonly used in an affidavit or report |
| Reliability of methodology for interpreting unfamiliar phrases | Elton’s training/experience suffice to interpret terms | If phrases were new to Elton, Government must show reliable method used to derive meanings | For any phrase Elton had not seen before, Government must disclose the methodology he used to determine meaning in a sworn declaration or report |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court must ensure expert testimony is both relevant and reliable)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to technical and other specialized knowledge)
- United States v. Bailey, 607 F.2d 237 (9th Cir. 1979) (law‑enforcement agents may interpret commonly used drug jargon)
- United States v. Hermanek, 289 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2002) (agent may not interpret novel terms without the Government establishing the reliability of the method used)