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

A flight arrived from Bogota, Colombia. Near the passenger arrival gate, stood Customs Inspector Sergio Espinoza on a podium. Espinoza's duty was to evaluate each disembarking passenger according to an official 'drug courier profile.' Espinoza's fixed on D, who walked aimlessly down the concourse with a carry-on bag in his hand and a 'dumbfounded' look on his face. Espinoza used Spanish to hail him over to the podium. Looking at D's ticket, passport, and customs declaration, D had begun his trip from the reputed drug capital, Medellin, Colombia. D paid for his ticket with cash. D had an Australian visa and would be in the United States only for three hours before his flight to Sydney. The 23-year-old D was a newcomer to international travel. D had checked only one piece of baggage. D was told that he would have to visit the Immigration Office on the first level of the airport before he could go on to Sydney. D's suitcase had a double compartment where the officers discovered two plastic bags containing roughly two kilograms of cocaine. At trial, Espinoza testified on how D fit a drug profile. D objected twice during the testimony for hearsay and also under Rule 404(b). Both objections were overruled. The judge instructed the jury that the drug profile evidence was background material about all the events of the day and what the inspectors told each other and not related to D’s guilt. D was convicted and appealed. D now claims the drug profile evidence was unfairly prejudicial and thus inadmissible under Rule 403.

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

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

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