reactions and actions taken in response to an alleged threat are relevant to the determination of whether a statement is a ‘true threat.’ ”). While the victim’s subjective view is not controlling, it is assuredly relevant. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Amy to explain why certain of the appellant’s words and deeds frightened her. There is one loose end. The appellant argues that an FBI agent should not have been permitted to opine that a bag found in the appellant’s house, which contained among other things a knife, rubber gloves, and duct tape, was a “murder kit.” This was not a lay opinion at all: the agent had 10 years of law-enforcement experience and was trained in forensics. See United States v. Hoffman, 832 F.2d 1299, 1310 (1st Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). We need not belabor the point. The only
holding that a state conviction is a drug trafficking offense because the trafficked drug is listed in a csa schedule holding that dea agents experience in combating drug trafficking qualified him to opine on the meaning of a coded telephone conversation between suspected dealers holding that prior drug trafficking conviction was admissible to prove intent to distribute recognizing the connection between guns and drug trafficking recognizing the inherent danger in stopping those suspected of drug trafficking for which guns are known tools of the trade