United States v. Safieh Fard

Good Law
597 F. App'x 438
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 16, 201513-50219California288 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Safieh Fard appeals her convictions for conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to commit money laundering. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 , 1956(h). She argues that the district court erred by denying her request, made on the penultimate day of trial, to call a previously undisclosed expert witness. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm.

1. Fard contends that the district judge erred in denying her request to call the expert witness for failure to comply with the notice provisions of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, rather than continuing the trial to allow the government to prepare for examination of the expert. Even assuming that the witness should not have been excluded, we do not reverse for an abuse of discretion if the error was harmless. United States v. Peters, 937 F.2d 1422, 1424, 1426 (9th Cir.1991).

2. The proposed expert would have testified generally about money laundering and IRS investigative procedures. The proposed testimony was designed to show that the IRS had not followed its own policies in investigating this case. Fard’s attorney, however, had already vigorously cross-examined the testifying IRS agent on this…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.