United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 21-1521, 21-2618, & 21-2689 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERIC BARD, CARLO PAYNE, and ANTONIO MCCLURE, Defendants-Appellants. ____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 1:19-cr-00029-JRS-DML — James R. Sweeney II, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED NOVEMBER 28, 2022 — DECIDED JULY 10, 2023 ____________________

Before ROVNER, ST. EVE, and KIRSCH, Circuit Judges. KIRSCH, Circuit Judge. In early 2018, law enforcement be- gan investigating an Indianapolis drug trafficking organiza- tion led by Jshaun Trice. The investigation led to the indict- ments of Trice and over twenty of his associates for crimes including drug conspiracy, possession, and distribution. An- tonio McClure and Carlo Payne, two of Trice’s associates, were arrested following a drug surveillance operation on 2 Nos. 21-1521, 21-2618, & 21-2689 October 21, 2018. Law enforcement intercepted a phone call between McClure and Trice during which they spoke in coded language suggestive of a drug deal. Officers later ob- served McClure and Payne meet with Trice and pursued Payne in a high-speed chase during which he threw a sock containing 214.2 grams of methamphetamine out of his car window. Payne and McClure later discussed these events in detail on a recorded jail call. Both were charged as part of the drug conspiracy and with purchasing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine from Trice for the purpose of distribution, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). The government eventually dropped the conspiracy charge as to McClure and Payne. Both defendants went to trial on the remaining count and were convicted of possession of meth- amphetamine with intent to distribute. McClure and Payne raise three categories of arguments on appeal. First, they argue that the government impermissibly struck a Black potential juror in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). They argue that the government’s explana- tion for striking this juror—that he had a brother with a drug dealing conviction—was pretext because some white jurors who were not stricken also had relatives who had been in- volved with drugs. Second, they argue that the district court erred in permitting Detective Jason Hart to offer both expert and lay opinions at trial, and that the court failed to ade- quately instruct the jury as to his dual-role testimony accord- ing to the guidelines set forth in United States v. Jett, 908 F.3d 252 (7th Cir. 2018). Third, they contend that the evidence sup- porting their convictions was legally insufficient. We take each argument in turn, filling in the facts as we go. Finding no error, we affirm their convictions. Nos. 21-1521, 21-2618, & 21-2689 3

This appeal also involves a third Trice associate, Eric Bard, who pleaded guilty to distribution of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii). The district judge sentenced him to 262 months, the very bot- tom of his Sentencing Guidelines range. Bard argues on ap- peal that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We disa- gree, and thus affirm his sentence too. I A We begin with McClure and Payne’s Batson argument. We defer to a district court’s Batson findings and review those findings only for clear error. United States v. Jones, 56 F.4th 455, 477 (7th Cir. 2022). “Unless we arrive at a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made,” we will affirm. Id. (cleaned up). As opponents o