1.  Necessity of Producing in Court

In a prosecution for possession or distribution of narcotics, the narcotics themselves are the corpus delecti.{footnote}State v. Burge, 811 S.W.2d 318, 318 (Ark. 1991).  See CORPUS DELECTI.{/footnote}  The prosecution is generally not required to produce the narcotics in court, however.{footnote}State v. Burge, 811 S.W.2d 318, 318 (Ark. 1991).{/footnote}  Where the narcotics are not produced in court, however, there must be testimony by a witness experienced with narcotics who can identify the nature of the substance allegedly possessed or distributed by the defendant.{footnote}State v. Burge, 811 S.W.2d 318, 318 (Ark. 1991).{/footnote}

Whether drugs introduced into evidence may be taken to the jury room is left to the sound discretion of the trial court.{footnote}United States v. De La Cruz Paulino, 61 F.3d 986 (1st Cir. 1995) (unwrapped sample of cocaine properly alllowed to go to jury); United States v. Rawwad, 807 F.2d 294, 297 (1st Cir. 1986) (approving trial court’s decision to  send more than fifteen pounds of heroin into the jury room), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 909 (1987).{/footnote}

2.  Expert Opinions{footnote}Irick v. United States, 565 A.2d 26, 31 (D.C. 1989); Coates v. United States, 558 A.2d 1148, 1151 (D.C. 1989) (PCP "users may act in a very violent and irrational way following use of the drug"). {/footnote}[1896]

Experienced law enforcement agents may identify a substance as a specific narcotic or other drug,{footnote}United States v. Bermudez, 526 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1975) (cocaine).{/footnote} as may experienced drug users{footnote}United States v. Paiva, 892 F.2d 148, 155-57 (1st Cir. 1989) (witness who had used and tasted cocaine on many occasions properly allowed to testify that substance tasted like cocaine); United States v. Sweeney, 688 F.2d 1131, 1145-46 (7th Cir. 1982) (user of PCP and methamphetamines could testify as to identity of these drugs).
{/footnote} and dealers.{footnote}United States v. Johnson, 575 F.2d 1347 (5th Cir. 1978) (Columbian marijuana); United States v. Atkins, 473 F.2d 308 (8th Cir. 1973) (heroin).
State v. Johnson, 196 N.W.2d 717 (Wis. 1972) (LSD).
{/footnote}  See also EXPERTS.