United States v. Page
United States v. Page
542 F.3d 257; 2008 WL 4134012
(Federal Reporter, Third Series)
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Colón-Díaz v. United States (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 2012)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Order of Court
The March 28, 2008, opinion of the court is modified as follows: On page 7, lines 2 through 6, delete
“Experience-derived police testimony concerning criminals’ typical modi oper-andi during a drug transaction does not constitute expert testimony, but lay-witness testimony admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 without any necessity for pretrial disclosure to the defense.”
and insert instead
“Experience-derived police testimony concerning criminals’ typical modi oper-andi during a drug transaction does not automatically constitute expert testimony, but depending on the content and circumstances can be (and here is) lay-witness testimony admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 without necessity for pretrial disclosure to the defense. Ayala-Pizarro does not, contrary to Page’s argument, establish a rule that all experienced-based police officer testimony is per se admissible under Rule 701.”
At the end of this new text, insert a new footnote (number 2)
“One circuit has apparently misread Ayala-Pizarro as doing so. See United States v. Oriedo, 498 F.3d 593, 603 n. 10 (7th Cir. 2007). To the extent Oriedo may be read as suggesting that all experienced-based police testimony must be expert testimony, that is contrary to our view of the law.”
The remaining footnotes are to be renumbered accordingly.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.