Some, but not all, circuits permit a law enforcement agent who is not designated as an expert to testify as a lay witness about drug slang, jargon or code in conversations to which the agent was not a party. Other circuits have ruled that this is improper because it is not, in fact, lay testimony but rather testimony based on experience and training that should be presented by a designated expert. Was it error for the district court in this case to permit a law enforcement agent to testify as a lay expert to otherwise unintelligible conversations which he believed contained drug slang, jargon or code?

Whether a law enforcement agent who is not designated as an expert can testify as a lay witness about drug slang, jargon or code in conversations to which the agent was not a party