United States v. Schwarck, No. 12-2054 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine. The court affirmed, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion at trial by admitting expert testimony regarding the distribution of methamphetamine because the evidence was relevant and defendant had not demonstrated that the testimony caused unfair prejudice that substantially outweighed its probative value. Unlike impermissible courier profile evidence, the expert's testimony here was relevant to rebut defendant's defense that he was merely a drug user and not a trafficker; even if the testimony was cumulative, it likely would have been harmless; and any allusion to possible sexual conduct by defendant was elliptical and too attenuated to prejudice him unfairly.
Court Description: Criminal Case - conviction. Admission of expert testimony regarding habits of drug dealers was relevant to rebut defense that defendant was merely a drug user and not a trafficker and explained the significance of items or activities in the drug trade even if cumulative. Any allusion to possible sexual conduct by defendant was elliptical and too attenuated to prejudice him unfairly. District court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the expert testimony.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.