First Circuit Fails to Answer Question of Whether Detective Improperly Testified That He Thought the Defendant Was Running a “Stash House”

Federal Rule of Evidence 701 provides that

If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is:

(a) rationally based on the witness’s perception;

(b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and

(c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.

One question that courts have failed to address in a coherent fashion is the extent to which law enforcement officers can off lay opinion testimony characterizing the behavior of suspects. In an Eleventh Circuit case I previously blogged about, the court allowed a DEA agent to testify pursuant to Rule 701 that he thought a suspect was conducting a “heat run.”

So, what about lay opinion testimony by a detective that the detective and another man were operating a “stash house”? That was the question addressed by the First Circuit in its recent opinion in United States v. Parsons, 2026 WL 2676331 (1st Cir. 2026).

In Parsons, a jury convicted Malik Parsons on one count of conspiracy to distribute illegal drugs and one count of possession with intent to distribute those drugs. At trial, the following Q&A occurred between the prosecutor and a detective regarding an apartment the defendant and his friend were using:

Q: Based on what we saw during this trial and everything we’ve learned, how do you believe the apartment was being used?

A: I believe it was being used as a stash house to package and distribute illegal narcotics.

Q: Who was using that stash house?

MS. HACKETT [defense counsel]: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A: Malik Bean and Malik Parsons.

On appeal, Parsons claimed that this testimony violated Rule 701. The First Circuit kind of sidestepped this issue, ruling as follows:

The government concedes that Detective Lattanzio’s testimony “raises concerns” under our precedent because it identifies Parsons as a user of the apartment that functioned as a “stash house,” effectively offering the conclusion that Parsons distributed illegal drugs. “Testimony by a law enforcement agent constitutes impermissible overview testimony when it effectively opines that a defendant is guilty based on the totality of information gathered in the agent’s investigation.”…While there appear to be sound reasons for the government’s concession, we need not definitively resolve that issue here because any error in admitting Detective Lattanzio’s challenged testimony was harmless.

An extensive array of unobjected-to testimony and evidence supported Parsons’s convictions.