USA v. Piedra-Gutierrez et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Criminal Case No. 23-cr-00049-PAB-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
3. LEONARDO MEDINA,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendant Leonardo Medina’s Motion to Strike
Expert Testimony of Andrew Cohen [Docket No. 406]. On March 11, 2025, the
government filed a response. Docket No. 416.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On February 22, 2023, Mr. Medina was charged with conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine, fentanyl, and cocaine, and with distribution of methamphetamine
and fentanyl. Docket No. 1 at 1-3, 13, 16-18.
In January 2025, the government identified FBI Special Agent Andrew Cohen as
“an expert in narcotics trafficking.” Docket No. 399 at 4-5. The parties agreed that the
government would provide a disclosure pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 by March 1,
2025 for Special Agent Cohen. Id. at 5. On February 26, 2025, the government
disclosed to Mr. Medina that Special Agent Cohen would testify about the following
topics:
Case No. 1:23-cr-00049-PAB Document 447 filed 03/20/25 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 10

2
(1) general practices of the illegal drug trade;
(2) the use and meanings of code words or terms used in conversation furthering
the illegal drug trade, both in general and within the context of this case;
(3) the quantity of methamphetamine, and fentanyl associated with distribution
rather than personal use;
(4) the wholesale and retail values of methamphetamine, and fentanyl;
(5) the use of counter-surveillance techniques in illegal narcotics trafficking.
Docket No. 406-1 at 2. The disclosure then provided a summary of Special Agent
Cohen’s opinions on these topics. Id. at 3-8.
II. 	ANALYSIS
Mr. Medina moves to strike Special Agent Cohen’s testimony for the following
reasons: (1) the Rule 16 disclosure for Special Agent Cohen is deficient; (2) Special
Agent Cohen’s opinions are not appropriate expert testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702;
(3) Special Agent Cohen’s opinions would be barred pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 704(b);
and (4) Special Agent Cohen will act as an improper summary witness. Docket No. 406
at 2-8.
A. Sufficiency of Rule 16 Disclosure
Mr. Medina argues that the government’s Rule 16 disclosure provides “no
indication in the government Notice of what, if any methodology Cohen used in arriving
at his opinions, nor is there any explanation for how his professional experience leads
him to reach conclusions he offers or how that experience is a sufficient basis for the
opinions he renders.” Id. at 6. The government argues that it provided Special Agent
Cohen’s curriculum vitae that shows that he has “over a decade of law enforcement
experience” that includes “years of constant exposure to drug trafficking investigations.”
Docket No. 416 at 5-6 (citation omitted). The government states that it identified the
Case No. 1:23-cr-00049-PAB Document 447 filed 03/20/25 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 10

3
matters that Special Agent Cohen would opine on and that he is qualified to render such
opinions. Id. at 6.
Rule 16(a)(1)(G)(iii) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that the
government disclose the following in its disclosures for expert witnesses:
x 	a complete statement of all opinions that the government will elicit from the
witness in its case- in-chief, or during its rebuttal to counter testimony that the
defendant has timely disclosed under (b)(1)(C);
x 	the bases and reasons for them;
x 	the witness’s qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the
previous 10 years; and
x 	a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness has
testified as an expert at trial or by deposition.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(G)(iii). Mr. Medina challenges whether the Rule 16 disclosure
adequately discloses the bases for Special Agent Cohen’s opinions and whether he has
the qualification to form those opinions. See Docket No. 406 at 6-7.
First, as to Special Agent Cohen’s qualifications, the Rule 16 disclosure states
that Special Agent Cohen has “developed an expertise in the methods and practices
used by drug traffickers, including but not limited to, the flow of narcotics, patterns of
activity, methods of transportation, common terminology, and materials utilized in the
practice of drug trafficking.” Id. Specifically, the Rule 16 disclosure identifies Special
Agent Cohen’s “experience and training” as including “years of constant exposure to
drug trafficking investigations and interviews with witnesses, former defendants,
informants, and others who are familiar with the illicit drug trade.” Id. at 2-3. The
government attached Special Agent Cohen’s curriculum vitae to the Rule 16 disclosure
that demonstrates that Special Agent Cohen has sufficient experience upon which to
Case No. 1:23-cr-00049-PAB Document 447 filed 03/20/25 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 10

4
base his opinions. Docket No. 406-2. Thus, the Court finds that the Rule 16 disclosure
sufficiently describes the qualifications Special Agent Cohen has to form his opinions.
Second, as to methodology, the Rule 16 disclosure describes the methodology
Special Agent Cohen used to arrive at his opinions regarding the meaning of coded
language. Docket No. 406-1 at 5-6. Mr. Medina further argues that the Rule 16
disclosure does not adequately describe the methodology that Special Agent Cohen
used to arrive at his opinions regarding the general practices of the illegal drug trade,
the quantity of methamphetamine and fentanyl associated with distribution rather than
personal use, the wholesale and retail values of methamphetamine and fentanyl, and
the use of counter-surveillance techniques used in narcotics trafficking. Docket No. 406
at 6-7. Mr. Medina argues that the Rule 16 disclosure does not explain how Special
Agent Cohen’s “professional experience leads him to reach the conclusions.” Id. at 6.
Rule 16 requires that disclosures contain the “bases and reasons” for the
opinions. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(G)(iii). The Rule 16 disclosure sufficiently describes
Special Agent Cohen’s opinions as being based upon his “training and experience,” that
has included “years of constant exposure to drug trafficking investigations” and
“interviews with witnesses, former defendants, informants, and others,” which has
allowed him to develop an “expertise in the methods and practices used by drug
traffickers.” Docket No. 406-1 at 2-3. Special Agent Cohen’s attached curriculum vitae
elaborates in greater detail the nature of his expertise that forms the basis for his
opinions. Docket No. 406-2; see United States v. Goxcon-Chagal, 886 F. Supp. 2d
1222, 1253-54 (D.N.M. 2012) (finding that the government’s Rule 16 disclosure for a
DEA special agent was sufficiently specific to satisfy Rule 16(a)(1)(G) where it stated
Case No. 1:23-cr-00049-PAB Document 447 filed 03/20/25 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 10

5
his opinions on whether the “quantity of methamphetamine in question is a distributable
amount, as opposed to personal use amount,” the “monetary value of the seized
methamphetamine,” and “general aspects of narcotics investigations” were based on his
qualifications, prior involvement with narcotics distribution investigations, and his
“personal knowledge of prices of narcotics in the Albuquerque, New Mexico area, as
well as common means of packaging of various narcotics and concealment methods
utilized by narcotic traffickers while transporting narcotic”); United States v. Jackson, 51
F.3d 646, 651 (7th Cir. 1995) (holding that a Rule 16 disclosure satisfied Rule 16’s
requirement that expert disclosures provide the bases and reasons for the opinions
because “[i]n the context of testimony regarding the drug courier profile, notification that
the witnesses would be testifying from years of experience as narcotics agents is
sufficient”). Accordingly, the Court finds that the Rule 16 disclosure for Special Agent
Cohen complies with the requirements of Rule 16(a)(1)(G)(iii).
While Mr. Medina characterizes his arguments as challenges to the sufficiency of
the Rule 16 disclosure, even if the Court considered Mr. Medina’s arguments as a Rule
702 challenge, the Court nonetheless finds that Special Agent Cohen’s opinions are not
inadmissible under Rule 702 for a lack of proper qualifications or failure to apply a
reliable methodology. Under Rule 702, where the expert testimony is non-scientific,
“reliability depends heavily on the knowledge and experience of the expert, rather than
the methodology or theory behind it.” United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160, 1169
(9th Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Garza, 566 F.3d 1194, 1198-99 (10th Cir.
2009) (holding that a police officer’s testimony, regarding the ways in which firearms are
used in connection with drug trafficking, satisfied Rule 702(c)’s requirement that “the
Case No. 1:23-cr-00049-PAB Document 447 filed 03/20/25 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 10

6
testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods” because police officers “can
acquire specialized knowledge of criminal practices”). “If the witness is relying solely or
primarily on experience, then the witness must explain how that experience leads to the
conclusion reached, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how
that experience is reliably applied to the facts.” Fed. R. Evid. 702, Advisory committee’s
notes.
Special Agent Cohen’s experience is explained in his curriculum vitae and the
Rule 16 disclosure statement, namely, that Special Agent Cohen had experienced
“years of constant exposure to drug trafficking investigations” that has included
“interviews with witnesses, former defendants, informants, and others.” Docket
No. 406-1 at 2-3; see Goxcon-Chagal, 886 F. Supp. 2d at 1241 (finding that a DEA
agent was qualified to “offer opinion testimony regarding the operations of narcotics
trafficking organizations” due to his “significant experience investigating drug
organizations as well as the methods they use to avoid law enforcement” and the DEA
agent’s “history that indicates he has acquired a significant knowledge, training, and
experience working on drug cases”). The Rule 16 disclosure explains that Special
Agent Cohen’s experience has allowed him to develop an “expertise in the methods and
practices used by drug traffickers, including but not limited to, the flow of narcotics,
patterns of activity, methods of transportation, common terminology, and materials
utilized in the practice of drug trafficking.” Docket No. 406-1 at 2. The Rule 16
disclosure goes on to detail Special Agent Cohen’s opinions, which are tied to Special
Agent Cohen’s personal law enforcement knowledge and experience in investigating
drug trafficking organizations, regarding “the flow of narcotics,” “patterns of activity,”
Case No. 1:23-cr-00049-PAB Document 447 filed 03/20/25 USDC Colorado pg 6
of 10

7
“methods of transportation,” and “materials utilized in the practice of drug trafficking”.
Id. at 2-5. The Court finds that the government sufficiently explains Special Agent
Cohen’s experience, why that experience is sufficient to form the basis for his opinions,
and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts.
B. Appropriateness of Opinions Under Fed. R. Evid. 702(a)
Mr. Medina argues that Special Agent Cohen’s testimony is excludable under
Rule 702(a) because it consists of information that is “well within the knowledge of an
untrained layperson.” Docket No. 406 at 5. He argues that there is “nothing about the
alleged [drug trafficking organization] in this case which would be considered
sophisticated or complex, or beyond the average juror’s ability to comprehend.” Id. The
government responds that an average layperson has no reason to know that certain
coded words refer to narcotics. Docket No. 416 at 3. Furthermore, the government
argues that Special Agent Cohen would testify regarding the “regular practices of drug
traffickers” and provide “contextual information regarding the values and common
weights of narcotics.” Id. at 4-5. The government argues that such testimony is useful
to the jury and concerns information that is not within the common knowledge of jurors.
Id.
Rule 702(a) requires that the proponent of an expert witness must demonstrate
that it is more likely than not that “the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in
issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 702(a). The Court rejects Mr. Medina’s argument that “knowledge
of the general practices of the illegal drug trade is common knowledge in our society
today,” that Special Agent Cohen’s testimony would not help the jury understand the
Case No. 1:23-cr-00049-PAB Document 447 filed 03/20/25 USDC Colorado pg 7
of 10

8
evidence or to determine a fact in issue. 	Docket No. 406 at 4. The Tenth Circuit
recognizes that courts “routinely allow law enforcement experts with ‘other specialized
knowledge’ to opine as to the means and methods of the narcotics trade.” United
States v. Garcia, 635 F.3d 472, 477 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702(a)).
“Because the average juror is often innocent of the ways of the criminal underworld,
expert testimony is allowed in order to provide jurors a context for the actions of
defendants.” Id. The Court finds that information such as whether coded words refer to
narcotics, the values and common weights of narcotics, and common practices that
drug traffickers use concern “means and methods of narcotics trade” that are permitted
under Fed. R. Evid. 702. See Garcia, 635 F.3d at 477.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the government has shown that it is more likely
than not that Special Agent Cohen’s specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. See Fed. R. Evid. 702(a).
C. Appropriateness of Opinions Under Fed. R. Evid. 704(b)
Mr. Medina indicates that he would “strongly object,” pursuant to Rule 704(b), to
an attempt by Special Agent Cohen to testify that “the evidence points to Mr. Medina
having the requisite mental state necessary to commit some or all of the crimes
charged.” Docket No. 406 at 7. The Court credits the government’s assertion that
Special Agent Cohen will not testify to matters prohibited by Rule 704(b). Docket
No. 416 at 6. Accordingly, the Court will not exclude Special Agent Cohen’s opinions
based upon speculation that they may be barred under Rule 704(b).
Case No. 1:23-cr-00049-PAB Document 447 filed 03/20/25 USDC Colorado pg 8
of 10

9
D. Whether Special Agent Cohen is an Improper “Summary” Witness
Mr. Medina argues that there is a “real danger” that the government will use
Special Agent Cohen’s testimony as a means to “sum up or tie together the
government’s case in the form of expert testimony.” Docket No. 406 at 7. The Court
credits the government’s assertion that Special Agent Cohen’s testimony will not
“circumvent the rules of evidence” by impermissibly using Special Agent Cohen’s
testimony to “sum up or tie together” the government’s case. Docket No. 416 at 7
(citation omitted). There is no indication that Special Agent Cohen would impermissibly
sum up or tie together the government’s case, particularly because Special Agent
Cohen was not the case agent assigned to Mr. Medina’s case. See United States v.
Mendoza, 236 F. App’x 371, 384 (10th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (“the use of a case
agent as an expert increases the likelihood that inadmissible and prejudicial testimony
will be proffered, in particular, when the expert goes beyond his expertise and
summarizes his beliefs about the defendant’s conduct based upon his knowledge of the
case”). Regardless, at trial, Special Agent Cohen will not be permitted to “simply recap
substantial portions of the Government’s case-in-chief” or “repeat its entire case-in-chief
shortly before jury deliberations.” United States v. Fullwood, 342 F.3d 409, 413 (5th Cir.
2003). If Special Agent Cohen appears to be summarizing the evidence during his
testimony, Mr. Medina can, of course, object.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is
Case No. 1:23-cr-00049-PAB Document 447 filed 03/20/25 USDC Colorado pg 9
of 10

10
ORDERED that the Motion to Strike the Expert Testimony of Andrew Cohen
[Docket No. 406] is DENIED.
DATED March 20, 2025
BY THE COURT:
___________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
__________________________
Case No. 1:23-cr-00049-PAB Document 447 filed 03/20/25 USDC Colorado pg
10 of 10