In a recent piece featured on Reuters Legal News, Keker, Van Nest & Peters partner Brook Dooley and associate Hillary Irvin discuss the potential implications of the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Diaz which centers on the interpretation of Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b). This rule dictates that in criminal cases, expert witnesses are prohibited from expressing opinions about a defendant's mental state, a crucial element of the crime charged.
Brook and Hillary explain the background of the case introducing Delilah Diaz, who was arrested for drug smuggling after 55 pounds of methamphetamine were discovered hidden in her car at the Mexico-United States border. During Diaz's trial, the prosecution introduced expert testimony from a Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent suggesting that most drug couriers are aware of the illicit cargo they transport. Diaz contested the admissibility of this testimony, arguing it violated Rule 704(b) by effectively opining on her mental state. Despite her objections, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld her conviction, leading to a circuit split.
Brook and Hillary suggest the case's significance extends beyond drug smuggling, as it raises broader questions about the permissible scope of expert testimony in criminal trials, particularly regarding defendants' mental states. The outcome has significant implications particularly on future criminal cases involving white-collar offenses where defendants' mental states are often pivotal. The decision will clarify the boundaries of expert testimony and its role in establishing defendants' mental states, shaping the landscape of criminal trials moving forward.
Click here to read the full article.