United States v. Valencia-Lopez
A plain-English summary from Criminal Defense Resources™, a free resource for pro per/pro se defendants and their families.
- Decided
- Citation
- 971 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2020)
What did the court decide?
The Ninth Circuit vacated a defendant's four drug convictions and ordered a new trial because the district court let a government expert, an ICE supervisory special agent, testify without making any finding that his key opinion was reliable. The defendant said armed men forced him to drive drugs across the border; the agent testified the chance that traffickers would trust drugs to a coerced driver was "almost nil." The court said the agent's experience was enough to qualify him as an expert, but the record did not show why that experience made this particular opinion reliable, and brushing off objections as "going to the weight" is not a reliability ruling. One judge dissented.
Why does it matter?
Being qualified and giving a reliable opinion are separate questions. An experienced officer or agent still has to show how that experience supports a specific conclusion, such as "that never happens." The rule applies to government experts and defense experts alike.
Where can I read the full opinion?
Read the full opinion on U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit →
Always read the full opinion and check whether later cases have limited or changed it. A summary can leave out important details.
Related rulings
- United States v. Hankey
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- State v. Schoenhardt