Supreme Court to Decide on Expert Testimony Use in “Blind Mule” Drug Trafficking Cases

The justices of the Supreme Court have agreed to decide if the prosecutors in a drug-trafficking case can utilise the testimony of a government witness as expert evidence to argue against the defendant’s claim of ignorance regarding the presence of drugs. The term “blind mule” is used to refer to individuals who are unknowingly used for transporting drugs.

This announcement came to light through a list of orders released from the justices’ private conference on Thursday.

This question of expert testimony arises in the case of Delilah Diaz, who was detained at the U.S.-Mexico border with 28 kilograms of methamphetamine concealed in her car. Diaz argued that the vehicle belonged to her boyfriend and claimed she had no knowledge of the drugs.

The conviction of Diaz on drug trafficking charges was contingent on the government’s ability to prove that she was aware of the presence of the drugs. In order to establish this, prosecutors enlisted a Homeland Security agent as an expert witness at her trial. The agent argued that drug couriers usually are aware when they are transporting drugs across the border. Furthermore, he stated that drug traffickers seldom employ “blind mules” for carrying large quantities of drugs, to avoid endangering their valuable contraband. Diaz was consequently convicted and sentenced to seven years in prison.

Diaz appealed, claiming that the admission of the agent’s testimony contravened the Federal Rules of Evidence, which restrict expert witnesses from sharing opinions about whether a defendant had the appropriate mental state to commit a crime or assert a defense. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, however, dismissed her appeal by reasoning that the evidentiary rules only prevent expert witnesses from particularly stating if someone was aware of their criminal actions.

Diaz’s appeal was the sole case for which review was granted this Monday. Moreover, the justices invited the Biden administration’s perspective on an antitrust case instigated by a U.S.-based soccer promoter, Relevent Sports, against the U.S. Soccer Federation and FIFA.

The next private conference of the justices is reportedly scheduled for Friday, Nov. 17.

This news was originally reported by Amy Howe on the SCOTUSblog. You can read the original article for a more detailed insight.