HEADNOTE: Mario Rodriguez Gutierrez v. State of Maryland, No. 98 ...

contrary evidence, that the defendant was accommodating the 18 th Street Gang, which had
ordered a hit on the victim).
Nor is Mansoori, 304 F.3d 635, (7th Cir. 2002) authority for the admission of the
evidence regarding gang culture in this case. In Mansoori, the appellants were convicted in
federal district court of engaging in a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute narcotics.
304 F.3d at 640. The State’s theory of the case was that “the defendants were involved in
a unitary conspiracy that used the T[raveling] V[ice ]L[ords], organization[, the gang with
which the defendant and his co-defendants were associated] to distribute cocaine and
heroin[.]” Id. at 653. To prove that theory, over the objections of the defense, the court
permitted a police gang specialist to give opinion testimony regarding the history, leadership,
and operations of the TVL. The defense had a different theory, it posited that the narcotics
transactions were part of a series of unrelated conspiracies. Id. at 652-54. These opposing
theories were evident from the opening statements. Id. at 653. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
permitting the expert testimony, reasoning that the average juror was unlikely to be familiar
with the operations of narcotics traffickers or of street gangs; thus, the testimony supplied
the jury with useful background concerning the history and structure of TVLs, as well as
their involvement in narcotics activities. Id. at 654. The court also found no reason to
believe that the testimony invited the jury to reach incorrect conclusions, or to otherwise
mislead, confuse, or prejudice the defendants’ case. See id.
In all of the cases, on which the majority relies, in which the admission of gang-
13