The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

An FBI informant called D asked to buy three ounces of heroin, and planned to meet up with D later in the week. D discussed the product he was selling using coded language, referring to it by other terms, including 'cars,' 'horses,' and 'cheese.' Video footage from a hidden camera worn by the informant during the drug deal revealed that D was selling heroin and methamphetamine. In the video, D arrives at the agreed-upon location wearing a checkered shirt. D enters the informant's car for a short conversation about drug quantities and prices. Then the two men drive separately to a second location on a rural road. Next, the video shows D leaving his truck and riding in the informant's vehicle to a third and final location. During the drive, D reassures the informant that changing locations would avoid problems and be safer. The two men again discuss drug prices and quantities using coded language. At the third location, the video shows the informant stopping his car on a rural road as an approaching green SUV driven by an unidentified man does the same. The video shows D sitting in the passenger seat and talking to the informant. The camera view does not actually show D exiting the informant's vehicle; the sound of a car door opening can be heard. And then a person whose face isn't visible to the camera but who is wearing the same checkered-pattern shirt as D removes foil-wrapped packages from the SUV and hands them through the driver's door to the informant. After the informant places the packages on the passenger seat, the camera view shifts back to the driver's side window, where D is briefly seen standing. D then leaves with the unidentified man in the green SUV. The packages held about two pounds of methamphetamine and half a pound of heroin. Three weeks later, in another recorded meeting with the informant and an undercover agent, D collected payment for the earlier drug deal and discussed prices for future deals. D testified in his own defense. Doffered an elaborate explanation about the origins of the packages on the video, which he said were not his. On cross-examination, D suggested that he did not remember the events shown in the video. But he also admitted that the video showed him meeting the informant, following the informant to the second location, and driving with the informant to the third location was valid. He further acknowledged that the video showed him standing next to the green SUV. But when asked about the portion of the video showing a person whose face is not visible, but who is wearing the same checkered shirt worn by D in other portions of the video, handing the packages to the informant, Andasola asserted that the 'video's been changed' to look like he handed the packages to the informant, which he 'never did.' On redirect, his attorney then asked him to identify the differences he observed 'between that video and this video.' D maintained, 'Somebody puts drugs in the back of that car, and you see their-their hands, their arms, like this, not with-not from the-not in the front and not with the jacket on.' P represented that no other video existed and that the video played for the jury was the same video produced in discovery. P asked the district court to instruct the jury that there was only one video. The district court instructed the jury 'that there is only one video that exists in this case. That video has been labeled as Government Exhibit 14. To the extent there was any implication that another video exists, that is not an accurate statement. There is only one video.' D was convicted and appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.