In United States v. Velazquez, --- F.4th ---, No. 22-50239 (9th Cir. 2025), the Court affirmed the district court’s admission of an agent’s expert testimony about the retail value of seized fentanyl.
The question before us is whether law enforcement experts can testify about the retail value of narcotics in cases limited to charges of importing illicit drugs. We answer that question “yes” and, accordingly, affirm.Velazquez advances three arguments as to why the district court abused its discretion when admitting Keisel’s expert testimony about the retail value of the fentanyl: (1) the testimony was irrelevant; (2) the prejudicial effect of the testimony substantially outweighed its probative value; and (3) this court has not definitively held that testimony about the retail value of drugs is permissible when the defendant is charged only with importation-related crimes. All three arguments are unpersuasive.[W]e conclude that district courts do not abuse their discretion when admitting evidence of the retail value of narcotics in cases confined to importation charges when that evidence is relevant, probative, and not unfairly prejudicial under the standards set forth in the Federal Rules of Evidence.
