duty. There are those who grow the marijuana, those who store it, those who package it, those who find cars and drivers to smuggle it, and those who sell it. He also testified on direct that fingerprinting drug packaging would not be a valuable tool during drug courier investigations because drug trafficking organizations are intentionally structured so that drivers do not load the drugs into the car. The defense presented no evidence. The only element at issue in the trial was whether Pineda-Torres knew that the drugs were in the car. During closing arguments, the government contended that, because Pineda-Torres was part of a “sophisticated drug organization,” he must have known that drugs were in the car. The defense responded by arguing that the government did 5 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Vallejo, like Pineda-Torres, was driving a
holding admissible police officers testimony that firearms are commonly used in drug trafficking holding that expert testimony regarding the structure of drug trafficking organizations was inadmissible in a nonconspiracy importation case holding that expert testimony concerning the structure of drug trafficking organizations is inadmissible where the defendant is not charged with a conspiracy to import drugs or where such evidence is not otherwise probative of a matter properly before the court holding that the district court committed prejudicial error in admitting expert testimony about the structure of drug trafficking organizations because the testimony portrayed the defendant as a member of such an organization and implied the defendant knew the drugs were in his vehicle holding that unknowing drug courier testimony was admissible in a complex drug importation case