CA1: Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a) cop "basis" issues

US v. Lipscomb, No. 07-1293 (8/21/08).  Some decided a guy looked like a drug dealer and approached him.  He threw a bag with some drugs and a gun and ran.  Then they tackled him.  Isn’t the war on drugs awesome?  He moved to suppress the drugs and gun, but he kept saying that neither was his (though if he did claim that they were his, it wouldn’t be usable at trial).  So, the District Court denies the motion and the First affirms.

There is a semi-interesting issue regarding whether a Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(G) requires disclosure of the “bases” for an expert’s opinion.  Although the District Court thought the notice was barely adequate, the First jumps in and says that saying that “training and experience” is a good enough basis for an opinion.  WTF.  But then the First tries to say that because this was a cop, it will pass, but if it were a real expert (not a “cop” expert) then it would require more detail.  This seems a tad unfair to defendants.  But wait – nobody cares.

A denial of a motion to disclose the name of a confidential informant by a magistrate that wasn’t appealed to the district court is deemed waived.    There are a few other issues that are waived or not supported by “Facts.”  So, they don’t really create new law.

After all this, however, he gets a Kimbrough remand, because it is a crack/powder case.