The Supreme Court upholds the conviction of woman who challenged expert testimony in a drug case
The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a California woman who said she didn’t know about a stash of methamphetamine hidden inside her car
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the conviction of a California woman who said she did not know about a stash of methamphetamine hidden inside her car.
The 6-3 opinion came in a case that revolved around how much expert witnesses can say about a defendant's mindset.
Delilah Guadalupe Diaz was sentenced to seven years in prison after on drug charges after Border Patrol agents discovered methamphetamine worth nearly $370,000 stashed inside the car door panel as she crossed the U.S.-Mexico border.
Diaz contended the car belonged to a boyfriend and that she did not know the drugs were inside. Defense lawyers argued that she was a “blind mule,” a term for people used by cartels to smuggle drugs without their knowledge.
Prosecutors disagreed. They called as an expert witness a Homeland Security agent who testified that drug cartels do not usually send large quantities of drugs with people who are unaware of the contraband, though the agent acknowledged that has happened.
Diaz appealed her conviction, arguing the agent's testimony broke a rule of evidence that expert witnesses cannot give opinions on a defendant’s mental state.
Prosecutors countered that the agent was speaking from his own expertise and that his testimony did not break that rule because it did not make any references to Diaz specifically.
Lower courts had split on that distinction. Judges in some parts of the country have allowed more general expert testimony about mental state while others kept it out, her lawyers argued.
The case is Diaz v. United States, 23-14
___
Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.