A defendant was stopped at the border traveling with more than 54 pounds of meth hidden in her car. She claimed to be unaware of the drugs. At trial the government called an expert witness to testify that drug traffickers "generally" do not entrust large quantities of drugs to people who are unaware they are transporting them.
The defendant objected to this testimony under FRE 704(b) which prohibits an expert from stating an opinion about whether a defendant had a particular mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged. The Court overruled the objection and held that because the expert only testified that "most people" in a group have a particular mental state it did not constitute an opinion about the defendant.
This could not be a more disappointing decision by the Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. Experienced and aggressive federal criminal defense lawyers should continue to object to this type of evidence which circumvents the government's responsibility to prove every element of a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
