United States v. Alatorre

222 F.3d 1098 (2000)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Alatorre

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
222 F.3d 1098 (2000)

  • Written by Arlyn Katen, JD

Facts

A federal grand-jury indictment charged Jorge Alberto Alatorre (defendant) with importing marijuana and possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, based upon a 1999 border search in which officials recovered almost 69 pounds of marijuana from a hidden compartment in Alatorre’s car. Before trial, both parties filed motions in limine regarding the government’s (plaintiff) proposed expert testimony about the value of the marijuana seized. During a hearing on the motions in limine, Alatorre requested a separate pretrial hearing to determine whether, under the Daubert rule, the government’s proposed expert testimony was relevant to the sole trial issue of whether Alatorre knew that the car he drove contained drugs. The district court ruled that the government’s expert testimony was admissible, and it denied Alatorre’s request for a separate Daubert hearing. The trial court reasoned that both parties’ attorneys and the court had heard similar expert testimony many times before. Alatorre would be able to conduct a voir dire examination of the government’s expert in front of the jury during trial, and if any issues arose, the parties could question the expert further without the jury present. At trial, the government called Lee Jacobs, a senior special agent of the United States Customs Service, to testify as an expert, and Alatorre extensively questioned Jacobs during voir dire. Jacobs had 12 years of experience as a special agent, was familiar with the structure of marijuana-smuggling enterprises, and had specialized training in the use and sale of narcotics. After voir dire, Alatorre renewed his objection to Jacobs’s testimony, and the district court denied the motion, finding that Jacobs’s testimony would be reliable and relevant. Jacobs testified about the wholesale and retail values of the seized marijuana. The jury convicted Alatorre on both charges. Alatorre appealed, arguing that the district court erred by rejecting Alatorre’s request for a pretrial Daubert hearing.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (McKeown, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership