Lenin Lugo v. United States

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in opinion form if the testimony is shown to be reliable. Federal Rule of Evidence 701 offers an exception for opinions based on a lay witness’s perception: “If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: . . . not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.” Fed. R. Evid. 701(c). The Eleventh Circuit held below that law enforcement officers could opine as lay witnesses under Rule 701 without satisfying Rule 702 when their testimony was based on their professional experience. See App. 7-8 (“The USCG personnel’s lay opinion testimony was admissible under Rule 701 as their testimony was rationally based on the USCG personnel’s professional experiences, rather than scientific or technical knowledge.”). This conflicts with a contrary holding of the Second Circuit. See United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201, 216 (2d Cir. 2005) (“We hold that the foundation requirements of Rule 701 do not permit a law enforcement agent to testify to an opinion so based and formed if the agent’s reasoning process depended, in whole or in part, on his specialized training and experience.”). Other circuits have joined opposite sides of this split of authority. The question presented is whether an opinion of a law enforcement officer that depends on the witness’s professional experience is admissible as Rule 701 lay opinion or must meet Rule 702’s expert opinion requirements.